BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer shot and
killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a brazen attack at their
home early Saturday, and a second lawmaker and his wife were wounded in
a separate shooting in what Gov. Tim Walz described as "targeted
political violence."
<snip>
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 07:32:33 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Bill Flatt wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer shot
and killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a brazen attack
at their home early Saturday, and a second lawmaker and his wife
were wounded in a separate shooting in what Gov. Tim Walz described
as "targeted political violence."
<snip>
The people held the "No Kings" protest anyway.
<https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/no-kings-protest-in-st-p
aul-draws-huge-crowd-despite-plea-to-stay-away>
Tens of thousands of protesters congregated outside the Minnesota
State Capitol Saturday as part of the nationwide "No Kings"
protest against the Trump administration, despite authorities
urging people to stay home in the wake of the shock killing of
Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband.
As many as 42 protests were due to be held across Minnesota in
coincide with the military parade being held by President Donald
Trump in Washington D.C.
There were tens of thousands in LA, millions across the country.
In article <102mq91$10a8r$4@dont-email.me>, bax02
_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3ait4ktbvhnl8b3f3f1bhls6ujau94k4l4@4ax.com:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 07:32:33 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Bill Flatt wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer shot
and killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a brazen attack
at their home early Saturday, and a second lawmaker and his wife
were wounded in a separate shooting in what Gov. Tim Walz described
as "targeted political violence."
<snip>
The people held the "No Kings" protest anyway.
<https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/no-kings-protest-in-st-p >>>> aul-draws-huge-crowd-despite-plea-to-stay-away>
Tens of thousands of protesters congregated outside the Minnesota
State Capitol Saturday as part of the nationwide "No Kings"
protest against the Trump administration, despite authorities
urging people to stay home in the wake of the shock killing of
Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband.
As many as 42 protests were due to be held across Minnesota in
coincide with the military parade being held by President Donald
Trump in Washington D.C.
There were tens of thousands in LA, millions across the country.
==========
These "No Kings" Crowd Pictures Vs. Military Parade Crowd Pictures Say A
LOT
You mean the "let's throw shit at the police" videos?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/no-kings-day-vs-military-parade-crowds?
origin=hfspl
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:3ait4ktbvhnl8b3f3f1bhls6ujau94k4l4@4ax.com:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 07:32:33 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Bill Flatt wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer shot
and killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a brazen attack
at their home early Saturday, and a second lawmaker and his wife
were wounded in a separate shooting in what Gov. Tim Walz described
as "targeted political violence."
<snip>
The people held the "No Kings" protest anyway.
<https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/no-kings-protest-in-st-p
aul-draws-huge-crowd-despite-plea-to-stay-away>
Tens of thousands of protesters congregated outside the Minnesota
State Capitol Saturday as part of the nationwide "No Kings"
protest against the Trump administration, despite authorities
urging people to stay home in the wake of the shock killing of
Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband.
As many as 42 protests were due to be held across Minnesota in
coincide with the military parade being held by President Donald
Trump in Washington D.C.
There were tens of thousands in LA, millions across the country.
==========
These "No Kings" Crowd Pictures Vs. Military Parade Crowd Pictures Say A
LOT
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/no-kings-day-vs-military-parade-crowds? origin=hfspl
These "No Kings" Crowd
Baxter wrote:
These "No Kings" Crowd
The Chimp Pack denotes a random collection of Negroids that usually assembles for an immediate purpose — such as Gang Rape, Looting, Intimidation, or 10 against 1 attacks on unsuspecting Humans. Negroes
are solely absorbed in their own selfish interests, but will band
together as a temporary measure against outsiders. Once the immediate
threat has passed, the Chimp Pack will disintegrate once again into a collection of individual Negroes that will try to rob, rape, or kill
each other.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:3ait4ktbvhnl8b3f3f1bhls6ujau94k4l4@4ax.com:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 07:32:33 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Bill Flatt wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer shot
and killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a brazen attack
at their home early Saturday, and a second lawmaker and his wife
were wounded in a separate shooting in what Gov. Tim Walz described
as "targeted political violence."
<snip>
The people held the "No Kings" protest anyway.
<https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/no-kings-protest-in-st-p
aul-draws-huge-crowd-despite-plea-to-stay-away>
Tens of thousands of protesters congregated outside the Minnesota
State Capitol Saturday as part of the nationwide "No Kings"
protest against the Trump administration, despite authorities
urging people to stay home in the wake of the shock killing of
Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband.
As many as 42 protests were due to be held across Minnesota in
coincide with the military parade being held by President Donald
Trump in Washington D.C.
There were tens of thousands in LA, millions across the country.
==========
These "No Kings" Crowd Pictures Vs. Military Parade Crowd Pictures Say A
LOT
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/no-kings-day-vs-military-parade-crowds? origin=hfspl
Baxter wrote:
These "No Kings" Crowd
The Chimp Pack ...
<snip>
On 15 Jun 2025, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> posted some news:102mq91$10a8r$4@dont-email.me:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3ait4ktbvhnl8b3f3f1bhls6ujau94k4l4@4ax.com:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 07:32:33 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Bill Flatt wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer shot
and killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a brazen attack
at their home early Saturday, and a second lawmaker and his wife
were wounded in a separate shooting in what Gov. Tim Walz
described as "targeted political violence."
<snip>
The people held the "No Kings" protest anyway.
<https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/no-kings-protest-in-st
-p aul-draws-huge-crowd-despite-plea-to-stay-away>
Tens of thousands of protesters congregated outside the
Minnesota State Capitol Saturday as part of the nationwide "No
Kings" protest against the Trump administration, despite
authorities urging people to stay home in the wake of the shock
killing of Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband.
As many as 42 protests were due to be held across Minnesota in
coincide with the military parade being held by President Donald
Trump in Washington D.C.
There were tens of thousands in LA, millions across the country.
==========
These "No Kings" Crowd Pictures Vs. Military Parade Crowd Pictures
Say A LOT
Scared you, didn't it? Discovering there are that many mentally ill
adult infants in the US.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/no-kings-day-vs-military-parade-crowds
? origin=hfspl
Bill Flatt wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer shot and
killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a brazen attack at their
home early Saturday, and a second lawmaker and his wife were wounded in
a separate shooting in what Gov. Tim Walz described as "targeted
political violence."
<snip>
The people held the "No Kings" protest anyway.
<https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/no-kings-protest-in-st-paul-draws-huge-crowd-despite-plea-to-stay-away>
Tens of thousands of protesters congregated outside the Minnesota State
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:3ait4ktbvhnl8b3f3f1bhls6ujau94k4l4@4ax.com:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 07:32:33 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Bill Flatt wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer shot
and killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a brazen attack
at their home early Saturday, and a second lawmaker and his wife
were wounded in a separate shooting in what Gov. Tim Walz described
as "targeted political violence."
<snip>
The people held the "No Kings" protest anyway.
<https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/no-kings-protest-in-st-p
aul-draws-huge-crowd-despite-plea-to-stay-away>
Tens of thousands of protesters congregated outside the Minnesota
State Capitol Saturday as part of the nationwide "No Kings"
protest against the Trump administration, despite authorities
urging people to stay home in the wake of the shock killing of
Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband.
As many as 42 protests were due to be held across Minnesota in
coincide with the military parade being held by President Donald
Trump in Washington D.C.
There were tens of thousands in LA, millions across the country.
==========
These "No Kings" Crowd Pictures Vs. Military Parade Crowd Pictures Say A
LOT
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/no-kings-day-vs-military-parade-crowds? origin=hfspl
==========Silly infantile label for a socialist mob gathering.
These "No Kings" Crowd Pictures Vs. Military Parade Crowd Pictures Say A
LOT
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/no-kings-day-vs-military-parade-crowds?
origin=hfspl
What the pictures say is that Trump has manipulated Democrats into a
corner, where they have publicly exposed themselves for the America hating disloyal lot they are.
On 6/15/2025 5:50 PM, Art Chan wrote:
==========Silly infantile label for a socialist mob gathering.
These "No Kings" Crowd Pictures Vs. Military Parade Crowd Pictures
Say A LOT
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/no-kings-day-vs-military-parade-crowd
s? origin=hfspl
What the pictures say is that Trump has manipulated Democrats into a
corner, where they have publicly exposed themselves for the America
hating disloyal lot they are.
Exactly.
There will be some jobless people by the end of next week thanks to
social media.
Art Chan <ac@alt.net> wrote in news:20250616.015007.90330a44@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:
There will be some jobless people by the end of next week thanks to
social media.
Yeah, fire all those NO KINGS people and completely shut down the country.
I dare you.
Rudy Canoza <rudy.can@jllkone.not> wrote in news:18494aa065c59b98$109494 $7034$66dd6c6a@news.thecubenet.com:
Baxter wrote:
These "No Kings" Crowd
The Chimp Pack denotes a random collection of Negroids that usually assembles for an immediate purpose � such as Gang Rape, Looting, Intimidation, or 10 against 1 attacks on unsuspecting Humans. Negroes
are solely absorbed in their own selfish interests, but will band
together as a temporary measure against outsiders. Once the immediate threat has passed, the Chimp Pack will disintegrate once again into a collection of individual Negroes that will try to rob, rape, or kill
each other.
Strange, most people aren't aware that tRump's MAGAts are negroes.
Hank <badenoch@ssac.ctr> wrote in news:fc2c112759.1750019971@byxor.hv:
On 15 Jun 2025, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> posted some news:102mq91$10a8r$4@dont-email.me:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3ait4ktbvhnl8b3f3f1bhls6ujau94k4l4@4ax.com:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 07:32:33 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Bill Flatt wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer shot
and killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a brazen attack >>>>> at their home early Saturday, and a second lawmaker and his wife
were wounded in a separate shooting in what Gov. Tim Walz
described as "targeted political violence."
<snip>
The people held the "No Kings" protest anyway.
<https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/no-kings-protest-in-st >>>> -p aul-draws-huge-crowd-despite-plea-to-stay-away>
Tens of thousands of protesters congregated outside the
Minnesota State Capitol Saturday as part of the nationwide "No
Kings" protest against the Trump administration, despite
authorities urging people to stay home in the wake of the shock
killing of Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband.
As many as 42 protests were due to be held across Minnesota in
coincide with the military parade being held by President Donald
Trump in Washington D.C.
There were tens of thousands in LA, millions across the country.
==========
These "No Kings" Crowd Pictures Vs. Military Parade Crowd Pictures
Say A LOT
Scared you, didn't it? Discovering there are that many mentally ill
adult infants in the US.
Actually, those were paid attendees at tRump's parade - but Muskrat ran
out of money.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/no-kings-day-vs-military-parade-crowds
? origin=hfspl
Art Chan <ac@alt.net> wrote in news:20250616.015007.90330a44@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:
There will be some jobless people by the end of next week thanks to
social media.
Yeah, fire all those NO KINGS people and completely shut down the country.
I dare you.
In article <102nf9s$159j0$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Hank <badenoch@ssac.ctr> wrote in
news:fc2c112759.1750019971@byxor.hv:
On 15 Jun 2025, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> posted some
news:102mq91$10a8r$4@dont-email.me:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3ait4ktbvhnl8b3f3f1bhls6ujau94k4l4@4ax.com:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 07:32:33 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Bill Flatt wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer
shot and killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a
brazen attack at their home early Saturday, and a second
lawmaker and his wife were wounded in a separate shooting in
what Gov. Tim Walz described as "targeted political violence."
<snip>
The people held the "No Kings" protest anyway.
<https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/no-kings-protest-in
-st -p aul-draws-huge-crowd-despite-plea-to-stay-away>
Tens of thousands of protesters congregated outside the
Minnesota State Capitol Saturday as part of the nationwide
"No Kings" protest against the Trump administration, despite
authorities urging people to stay home in the wake of the
shock killing of Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her
husband.
As many as 42 protests were due to be held across Minnesota
in coincide with the military parade being held by President
Donald Trump in Washington D.C.
There were tens of thousands in LA, millions across the country.
==========
These "No Kings" Crowd Pictures Vs. Military Parade Crowd Pictures
Say A LOT
Scared you, didn't it? Discovering there are that many mentally
ill adult infants in the US.
Actually, those were paid attendees at tRump's parade - but Muskrat
ran out of money.
Can you prove that? I didn't think so.
But many of your no
kings asswipes were paid.
Skeeter OG <invalid@none.com> wrote in news:MPG.42b9bd248b9ebf1298a36f@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <102nf9s$159j0$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Hank <badenoch@ssac.ctr> wrote in
news:fc2c112759.1750019971@byxor.hv:
On 15 Jun 2025, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> posted some
news:102mq91$10a8r$4@dont-email.me:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:3ait4ktbvhnl8b3f3f1bhls6ujau94k4l4@4ax.com:
On Sun, 15 Jun 2025 07:32:33 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Bill Flatt wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
BROOKLYN PARK, Minn. (AP) - A man posing as a police officer
shot and killed a Minnesota lawmaker and her husband in a
brazen attack at their home early Saturday, and a second
lawmaker and his wife were wounded in a separate shooting in
what Gov. Tim Walz described as "targeted political violence."
<snip>
The people held the "No Kings" protest anyway.
<https://bringmethenews.com/minnesota-news/no-kings-protest-in
-st -p aul-draws-huge-crowd-despite-plea-to-stay-away>
Tens of thousands of protesters congregated outside the
Minnesota State Capitol Saturday as part of the nationwide
"No Kings" protest against the Trump administration, despite
authorities urging people to stay home in the wake of the
shock killing of Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman and her
husband.
As many as 42 protests were due to be held across Minnesota
in coincide with the military parade being held by President
Donald Trump in Washington D.C.
There were tens of thousands in LA, millions across the country.
==========
These "No Kings" Crowd Pictures Vs. Military Parade Crowd Pictures
Say A LOT
Scared you, didn't it? Discovering there are that many mentally
ill adult infants in the US.
Actually, those were paid attendees at tRump's parade - but Muskrat
ran out of money.
Can you prove that? I didn't think so.
why should I have to prove that?
YOU never, ever prove any of your
claims.
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message news:102pcb5$1n069$1@dont-email.me...
why should I have to prove that?
Well for one thing to set the standard in which you show people how
they should support their claims...
YOU never, ever prove any of your
claims.
Instead of acting like the people who you are complaining about as not supporting their claims.
this is a perfect chance for you to show him and the rest of us
exactly how it should be done.
The only question is whether you can back up your claim and can you do
so according to your own standards.
So here's your chance to show up all of us by demonstrating exactly
how you think to needs to be done.
The only question is whether you can do so..... or will you invent
excuses because you can't hold yourself to your own standard thus
exposing yourself as a hypocrite
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in news:102ph10$1ob3m$1@dont-email.me:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:102pcb5$1n069$1@dont-email.me...
So, you got stringent rules for liberals/Dems that you and none of your conservaturds never, ever follow yourselves.why should I have to prove that?
Well for one thing to set the standard in which you show people how
they should support their claims...
YOU never, ever prove any of your
claims.
Instead of acting like the people who you are complaining about as not
supporting their claims.
this is a perfect chance for you to show him and the rest of us
exactly how it should be done.
The only question is whether you can back up your claim and can you do
so according to your own standards.
So here's your chance to show up all of us by demonstrating exactly
how you think to needs to be done.
The only question is whether you can do so..... or will you invent
excuses because you can't hold yourself to your own standard thus
exposing yourself as a hypocrite
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:13:42 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
But then it's easy to disprove your claim here, as there were 20K at
most for tRump's folly, and 12M for NO KINGS.
Baxter, you like just as much and as badly as the right.
Even the organizers' maximum estimates didn't exceed 5M and most
observers put it between 2M and 4M.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:57:37 -0500, Praetor Mandrake wrote:
It's not that we don't follow our standards, it's that the circumstances
don't arise where we are defending equal grounds to you. Certainly if
the situation called for it, we would follow the standard but since it
is not applicable we are neither following nor not following the standard.
Got anymore of those 'shrooms?
On 17/6/25 21:00, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:57:37 -0500, Praetor Mandrake wrote:
It's not that we don't follow our standards, it's that the circumstances >>> don't arise where we are defending equal grounds to you. Certainly ifGot anymore of those 'shrooms?
the situation called for it, we would follow the standard but since it
is not applicable we are neither following nor not following the standard. >>
Our standard standard flying high.
Station.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:58:12 -0500, Praetor Mandrake <horchata12839@gmail.com> wrote:
Baxter wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote inJust call it 8 billion then, because all of us had some sentiment in our >>hearts.
news:3sp25khksf4bdrj0vuseq9vnvtuqodr89j@4ax.com:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:13:42 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
But then it's easy to disprove your claim here, as there were 20K at >>>>> most for tRump's folly, and 12M for NO KINGS.
Baxter, you like just as much and as badly as the right.
Even the organizers' maximum estimates didn't exceed 5M and most
observers put it between 2M and 4M.
Alt National Park Service says 12 million. There were protestors in every >>> city and town - even in tiny towns, that didn't get counted by organizers. >>>
Baxter and c186282 are fraternal twins.
One is a radical leftist who believes and parrots anything and
everything his masters tell him to and the other is a radical rightist
who believes and parrots anything and everything his masters tell him
to.
Scout wrote:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:102pucn$1rl10$4@dont-email.me...
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:102ph10$1ob3m$1@dont-email.me:
So, you got stringent rules for liberals/Dems that you and none of your
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:102pcb5$1n069$1@dont-email.me...
why should I have to prove that?
Well for one thing to set the standard in which you show people how
they should support their claims...
YOU never, ever prove any of your
claims.
Instead of acting like the people who you are complaining about as not >>>> supporting their claims.
this is a perfect chance for you to show him and the rest of us
exactly how it should be done.
The only question is whether you can back up your claim and can you do >>>> so according to your own standards.
So here's your chance to show up all of us by demonstrating exactly
how you think to needs to be done.
The only question is whether you can do so..... or will you invent
excuses because you can't hold yourself to your own standard thus
exposing yourself as a hypocrite
conservaturds never, ever follow yourselves.
Actually, I have no stringent rules for liberals/Dems..
Rather I'm pointing out that you don't follow your OWN standards.
It's not that we don't follow our standards
it's that the circumstances don't arise where we are defending equal
grounds to you
Certainly if the situation called for it, we would follow the standard
but since it is not applicable we are neither following nor not following
the standard.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:57:37 -0500, Praetor Mandrake wrote:
It's not that we don't follow our standards, it's that the circumstances >>don't arise where we are defending equal grounds to you. Certainly if
the situation called for it, we would follow the standard but since it
is not applicable we are neither following nor not following the standard.
Got anymore of those 'shrooms?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 15:21:07 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >>news:3sp25khksf4bdrj0vuseq9vnvtuqodr89j@4ax.com:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 15:13:42 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
But then it's easy to disprove your claim here, as there were 20K at >>>>most for tRump's folly, and 12M for NO KINGS.
Baxter, you like just as much and as badly as the right.
Even the organizers' maximum estimates didn't exceed 5M and most
observers put it between 2M and 4M.
Alt National Park Service says 12 million. There were protestors in
every city and town - even in tiny towns, that didn't get counted by >>organizers.
Google Alt National Park Service
"The "Alt National Park Service" is a term used to describe a group of individuals and online communities that act as a form of resistance or advocacy for the National Park Service (NPS), particularly during
periods of perceived threat or policy uncertainty. It is not an
official branch of the US government. This group, which includes the
social media accounts @AltUSNPS on various platforms, emerged in 2017 following actions by the Trump administration regarding the NPS's
social media presence according to USA Today. "
Sorry, I don't credit accuracy to some semi anonymous facebook
account.
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of
official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500.
Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of
official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500.
Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY protest
- near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ... yeah, sure it takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to -- just like tRump's
parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of >>official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500.
Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY protest
- near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ... yeah, sure it takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to -- just like tRump's
parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 02:38:39 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >>news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of >>>>official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500. >>>>Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY
protest - near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ...
yeah, sure it takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to -- just
like tRump's parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
Meanwhile Bozeman, Montana had a few hundred.
Using only big city turnouts as the "average attendance" of all the
events is ...
well, it's stupid.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 02:38:39 -0000 (UTC), Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >>news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of >>>>official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500. >>>>Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY
protest - near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ...
yeah, sure it takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to -- just
like tRump's parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
Meanwhile Bozeman, Montana had a few hundred.
Using only big city turnouts as the "average attendance" of all the
events is ...
well, it's stupid.
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of >>>official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500.
Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY
protest - near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ...
yeah, sure it takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to -- just
like tRump's parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
On 18 Jun 2025, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> posted some news:102vt7e$3knhp$1@dont-email.me:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of >>>>official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500. >>>>Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY
protest - near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ...
yeah, sure it takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to -- just
like tRump's parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
Democrat expert calculations = guestimates, COVID death projections,
global warming, acid rain, overwhelming numbers of homosexuals and transgenders, no illegal aliens.
If we believed their numbers, homosexuals would be anally birthing
triplets and transgenders would be commanding the military.
mean dad <meandad@trump.usa> wrote in news:512212d7bf.1750378531
@mswmh.rr:
On 18 Jun 2025, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> posted some news:102vt7e$3knhp$1@dont-email.me:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of >>>>official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500. >>>>Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY
protest - near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ...
yeah, sure it takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to -- just
like tRump's parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
Democrat expert calculations = guestimates, COVID death projections,
global warming, acid rain, overwhelming numbers of homosexuals and transgenders, no illegal aliens.
If we believed their numbers, homosexuals would be anally birthing
triplets and transgenders would be commanding the military.
Conservaturd "math" has no connection with reality.
One tRumpster get's talked mean to, it's 9/11 again. 100 school kids get slaughtered, no big deal.
In article <102vt7e$3knhp$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of
official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500.
Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY protest >> - near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ... yeah, sure it >> takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to -- just like tRump's
parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
Question: Who the fuck cares?
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >news:2bp75k163e595o7u912q0t0u4r9gfr68bf@4ax.com:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 02:38:39 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >>>news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of >>>>>official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500. >>>>>Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY >>>protest - near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ...
yeah, sure it takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to -- just >>>like tRump's parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
Meanwhile Bozeman, Montana had a few hundred.
Using only big city turnouts as the "average attendance" of all the
events is ...
well, it's stupid.
Accepting the organizers counts is also stupid. They put NY at 200K,
while other creditable accounts put it at closer to 500K. Also the
number of events, 2000, doesn't reflect reality - there were a LOT of >unofficial, grassroots events.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 07:11:01 -0600, Skeeter OG <invalid@none.com>
wrote:
In article <102vt7e$3knhp$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in
news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of
official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of
2,500. Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the
events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY
protest - near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ...
yeah, sure it takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to --
just like tRump's parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
Question: Who the fuck cares?
He "saw" a calculation by an "expert" but couldn't show us who or
where.
All you need to know about him.
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 15:28:38 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >>news:2bp75k163e595o7u912q0t0u4r9gfr68bf@4ax.com:
On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 02:38:39 -0000 (UTC), Baxter
<bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:
Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>news:btt55kljr4bhf0g7fb19mt6h6e298mp7hm@4ax.com:
On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 15:20:30 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
Let's take the "official" high number, 5M, divide by the number of >>>>>>official events 2,000 - That would give an average turnout of 2,500. >>>>>>Does that look reasonable when you look at pictures of the events?
That depends. Have you seen pictures of every event?
Don't need EVERY event. Saw an calculation by an expert on the NY >>>>protest - near 500K on NY alone. Then all the other big cities ... >>>>yeah, sure it takes a genius to figure out we're being lied to -- just >>>>like tRump's parade drew 250K (according to tRump).
Meanwhile Bozeman, Montana had a few hundred.
Using only big city turnouts as the "average attendance" of all the
events is ...
well, it's stupid.
Accepting the organizers counts is also stupid. They put NY at 200K,
while other creditable accounts put it at closer to 500K. Also the
number of events, 2000, doesn't reflect reality - there were a LOT of >>unofficial, grassroots events.
What "creditable accounts"?
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math
sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down
over random spots and count people. Get representative sample and
average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
On 20 Jun 2025, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me:
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math
sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down
over random spots and count people. Get representative sample and
average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
And? How many did you come up with?
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it would
have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the situation and
then lied about it.
On 20/6/25 21:27, Garrison Hilliard wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me:
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math
sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down
over random spots and count people. Get representative sample and
average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
And? How many did you come up with?
That is the standard way to do census surveys.
I know that count does not matter. What matters is whether Magoos
start to worry about reelections.
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:31:32 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it would
have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the situation and
then lied about it.
Likely more.
Next question?
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 00:35:49 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 20/6/25 21:27, Garrison Hilliard wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me:
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math
sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down
over random spots and count people. Get representative sample and
average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
And? How many did you come up with?
That is the standard way to do census surveys.
I know that count does not matter. What matters is whether Magoos
start to worry about reelections.
Republicans in LA?
Do tell.
On 21/6/25 6:03, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 00:35:49 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 20/6/25 21:27, Garrison Hilliard wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me:
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math
sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are. >>>>>>
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down
over random spots and count people. Get representative sample and
average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
And? How many did you come up with?
That is the standard way to do census surveys.
I know that count does not matter. What matters is whether Magoos
start to worry about reelections.
Republicans in LA?
Do tell.
<https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-party-doubling-town-hall-meetings-republican-held/story?id=120644780>
Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!
On 21/6/25 5:57, NoBody wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:31:32 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it would >>> have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the situation and
then lied about it.
Likely more.
Next question?
How long have you been a sociology expert?
On Fri, 20 Jun 2025 17:31:32 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it would >>have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the situation and >>then lied about it.
Likely more.
Next question?
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:02:19 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 21/6/25 6:03, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 00:35:49 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 20/6/25 21:27, Garrison Hilliard wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me:
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your >>>>>>> eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math >>>>>>> sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are. >>>>>>>
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down
over random spots and count people. Get representative sample and
average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
And? How many did you come up with?
That is the standard way to do census surveys.
I know that count does not matter. What matters is whether Magoos
start to worry about reelections.
Republicans in LA?
Do tell.
<https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-party-doubling-town-hall-meetings-republican-held/story?id=120644780>
Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!
So now you admit
On 6/22/2025 6:01 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:02:19 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 21/6/25 6:03, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 00:35:49 -0700, Siri Cruz
<chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 20/6/25 21:27, Garrison Hilliard wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me:
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on
your eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle
basic math sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you >>>>>>>> are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down >>>>>>> over random spots and count people. Get representative sample
and average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
And? How many did you come up with?
That is the standard way to do census surveys.
I know that count does not matter. What matters is whether Magoos
start to worry about reelections.
Republicans in LA?
Do tell.
<https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-party-doubling-town-hall-
meetings-republican-held/story?id=120644780>
Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!
So now you admit
No.
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:02:19 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 21/6/25 6:03, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 00:35:49 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 20/6/25 21:27, Garrison Hilliard wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me:
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your >>>>>>> eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math >>>>>>> sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are. >>>>>>>
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down
over random spots and count people. Get representative sample and
average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
And? How many did you come up with?
That is the standard way to do census surveys.
I know that count does not matter. What matters is whether Magoos
start to worry about reelections.
Republicans in LA?
Do tell.
<https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-party-doubling-town-hall-meetings-republican-held/story?id=120644780>
Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!
So now you admit that the dems manufacture the outrage at these
townhalls.
This is progress for you.
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your eyes
and
your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it out and
provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down over
random spots and count people. Get representative sample and average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
On 22 Jun 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some news:1039btc$ko4c$2@dont-email.me:
On 6/22/2025 6:01 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:02:19 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 21/6/25 6:03, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 00:35:49 -0700, Siri Cruz
<chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 20/6/25 21:27, Garrison Hilliard wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me:
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on >>>>>>>>> your eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle
basic math sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you >>>>>>>>> are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down >>>>>>>> over random spots and count people. Get representative sample
and average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
And? How many did you come up with?
That is the standard way to do census surveys.
I know that count does not matter. What matters is whether Magoos
start to worry about reelections.
Republicans in LA?
Do tell.
<https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-party-doubling-town-hall-
meetings-republican-held/story?id=120644780>
Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!
So now you admit
No.
Yes
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me...
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and
your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it out
and
provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down over
random spots and count people. Get representative sample and average.
Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
1) You assume the spot picked is actually representative.
2) You assume the area is accurately calculated
Even a slight mistake could massively swing the results, and you can
easily make the results into anything you want by insuring such errors
favor the number you want.
If you wanted to do this in an honest way (honest being the opposite of corrupt), one would eyeball the chosen spot to see that it is nearly representative by picking a location with average population.
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me...
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and
your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it out
and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down over
random spots and count people. Get representative sample and average.
Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
1) You assume the spot picked is actually representative.
2) You assume the area is accurately calculated
Even a slight mistake could massively swing the results, and you can
easily make the results into anything you want by insuring such errors
favor the number you want.
On 23 Jun 2025, "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
posted some news:103bn90$1a58o$1@dont-email.me:
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me...
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and
your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it out
and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down over
random spots and count people. Get representative sample and average.
Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
1) You assume the spot picked is actually representative.
2) You assume the area is accurately calculated
Even a slight mistake could massively swing the results, and you can
easily make the results into anything you want by insuring such errors
favor the number you want.
That's what the media does.
They lie and
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me...
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your eyes >>>> and
your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it out
and
provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down over
random spots and count people. Get representative sample and average.
Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
1) You assume the spot picked is actually representative.
2) You assume the area is accurately calculated
Even a slight mistake could massively swing the results, and you can
easily make the results into anything you want by insuring such errors
favor the number you want.
If you wanted to do this in an honest way (honest being the opposite of corrupt), one would eyeball the chosen spot to see that it is nearly representative by picking a location with average population.
Praetor Mandrake wrote:
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me...
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and
your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it out >>>>> and
provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down over
random spots and count people. Get representative sample and average.
Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
1) You assume the spot picked is actually representative.
2) You assume the area is accurately calculated
Even a slight mistake could massively swing the results, and you can
easily make the results into anything you want by insuring such errors
favor the number you want.
If you wanted to do this in an honest way (honest being the opposite of
corrupt), one would eyeball the chosen spot to see that it is nearly
representative by picking a location with average population.
'Lay it down over random spots and count people. Get representative sample and average.'
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103ck61$1hsvl$2@dont-email.me...
Praetor Mandrake wrote:
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me...
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and
your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it out >>>>>> and
provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are. >>>>>>
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down over >>>>> random spots and count people. Get representative sample and average. >>>>> Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
1) You assume the spot picked is actually representative.
2) You assume the area is accurately calculated
Even a slight mistake could massively swing the results, and you can
easily make the results into anything you want by insuring such errors >>>> favor the number you want.
If you wanted to do this in an honest way (honest being the opposite of
corrupt), one would eyeball the chosen spot to see that it is nearly
representative by picking a location with average population.
'Lay it down over random spots and count people. Get representative
sample and average.'
Assuming the spots are truly random and actually produce a
representative sample. Again, you are assuming the samples will be representative of a massive area.
Scout wrote:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103ck61$1hsvl$2@dont-email.me...
Praetor Mandrake wrote:
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me...
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on
your eyes and
your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it >>>>>>> out and
provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you
are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down
over random spots and count people. Get representative sample and
average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
1) You assume the spot picked is actually representative.
2) You assume the area is accurately calculated
Even a slight mistake could massively swing the results, and you
can easily make the results into anything you want by insuring
such errors favor the number you want.
If you wanted to do this in an honest way (honest being the
opposite of corrupt), one would eyeball the chosen spot to see that
it is nearly representative by picking a location with average
population.
'Lay it down over random spots and count people. Get representative
sample and average.'
Assuming the spots are truly random and actually produce a
representative sample. Again, you are assuming the samples will be
representative of a massive area.
And this is why you were too stupid to take college math.
Scout wrote:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103ck61$1hsvl$2@dont-email.me...
Praetor Mandrake wrote:
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me...
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your >>>>>>> eyes and
your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it out >>>>>>> and
provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are. >>>>>>>
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down over >>>>>> random spots and count people. Get representative sample and average. >>>>>> Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
1) You assume the spot picked is actually representative.
2) You assume the area is accurately calculated
Even a slight mistake could massively swing the results, and you can >>>>> easily make the results into anything you want by insuring such errors >>>>> favor the number you want.
If you wanted to do this in an honest way (honest being the opposite of >>>> corrupt), one would eyeball the chosen spot to see that it is nearly
representative by picking a location with average population.
'Lay it down over random spots and count people. Get representative
sample and average.'
Assuming the spots are truly random and actually produce a
representative sample. Again, you are assuming the samples will be
representative of a massive area.
And this is why you were too stupid to take college math.
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:103epg2$25ugu$2@dont-email.me...
Scout wrote:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103ck61$1hsvl$2@dont-email.me...
Praetor Mandrake wrote:
Scout wrote:
"Siri Cruz" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me...
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your >>>>>>>> eyes and
your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math sorts it >>>>>>>> out
and
provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are. >>>>>>>>
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down >>>>>>> over
random spots and count people. Get representative sample and
average.
Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
1) You assume the spot picked is actually representative.
2) You assume the area is accurately calculated
Even a slight mistake could massively swing the results, and you can >>>>>> easily make the results into anything you want by insuring such
errors
favor the number you want.
If you wanted to do this in an honest way (honest being the
opposite of
corrupt), one would eyeball the chosen spot to see that it is nearly >>>>> representative by picking a location with average population.
'Lay it down over random spots and count people. Get representative
sample and average.'
Assuming the spots are truly random and actually produce a
representative sample. Again, you are assuming the samples will be
representative of a massive area.
And this is why you were too stupid to take college math.
Took it, learned it, passed it. one was even entitled the Statistical
Error of Measurement.
On 6/23/2025 2:36 AM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:hall-
On 22 Jun 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1039btc$ko4c$2@dont-email.me:
On 6/22/2025 6:01 AM, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:02:19 -0700, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 21/6/25 6:03, NoBody wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 00:35:49 -0700, Siri Cruz
<chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 20/6/25 21:27, Garrison Hilliard wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1034lof$99rb$3@dont-email.me:
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on >>>>>>>>>> your eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle >>>>>>>>>> basic math sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective. >>>>>>>>>>
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you >>>>>>>>>> are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down >>>>>>>>> over random spots and count people. Get representative sample >>>>>>>>> and average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
And? How many did you come up with?
That is the standard way to do census surveys.
I know that count does not matter. What matters is whether Magoos >>>>>>> start to worry about reelections.
Republicans in LA?
Do tell.
<https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democratic-party-doubling-town-
meetings-republican-held/story?id=120644780>
Happy! Happy! Joy! Joy!
So now you admit
No.
Yes
No, Blowjob.
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it
would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
On 20/6/25 14:01, Jon Brady wrote:
Pictures are worth a thousand words, but they play tricks on your
eyes and your brain gives up, misrepresents. A litle basic math
sorts it out and provides a clearer perspective.
How long is a city block in LA for example? Depends where you are.
300-600 feet (Older, dense areas)
500-700 feet (Federal buildings area)
Using the picture scale, choose a size like 5m x 5m. Lay it down
over random spots and count people. Get representative sample and
average. Calculate the area with people. Multiply.
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it
would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work kicking my fat flabby doughy pimply Nazi faggot ass some more.
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it
would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it
would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some
news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it
would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen Colbert that
the couple blocks where the protests occurred was about 0.01%.
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some
news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it
would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen Colbert
that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting, mass destruction doesn't matter.
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some
news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it
would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen Colbert
that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting, mass destruction doesn't matter.
typical liberal mindset. Fuck the people impacted by the destructions of their homes, vehicles and property.. there just aren't enough of you to matter....
However, you get 2 transvestites complaining they can't watch young
women shower.. then of course IMMEDIATE action has to be taking.
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:104giej$2uhgq$2@dont-email.me:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some
news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it >>>>>> would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen Colbert
that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting, mass
destruction doesn't matter.
They didn't matter to the "rioting looting
and mass destruction" caused by your Jan 6
heroes. Who is going to pay for THAT?
$30 Million In Damages From Pro-Trump Riot
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
https://tinyurl.com/bddt46jh
That wasn't looting, it was taking legitimate souvenirs. It's not like they-carried out Mitch McConnell's scalp like you are implying, Baxter.
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:104giej$2uhgq$2@dont-email.me:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some
news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it >>>>>> would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen Colbert
that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting, mass
destruction doesn't matter.
They didn't matter to the "rioting looting
and mass destruction" caused by your Jan 6
heroes. Who is going to pay for THAT?
$30 Million In Damages From Pro-Trump Riot
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
https://tinyurl.com/bddt46jh
That wasn't looting, it was taking legitimate souvenirs.
Scout wrote:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some
news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it
would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen Colbert
that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting, mass
destruction doesn't matter.
The protests were confined to a few blocks near a Home Depot. The city was not burning down.
'Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it would have burned'
typical liberal mindset. Fuck the people impacted by the destructions of
their homes, vehicles and property.. there just aren't enough of you to
matter....
No homes, vehicles. nor properties were impacted.
Locus Bring'r <horchata12839@gmail.com> wrote in news:md2nbsFqgilU2 @mid.individual.net:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:104giej$2uhgq$2@dont-email.me:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some >>>>> news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it >>>>>> would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen Colbert >>>> that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting, mass
destruction doesn't matter.
They didn't matter to the "rioting looting
and mass destruction" caused by your Jan 6
heroes. Who is going to pay for THAT?
$30 Million In Damages From Pro-Trump Riot
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
https://tinyurl.com/bddt46jh
That wasn't looting, it was taking legitimate souvenirs. It's not like they-carried out Mitch McConnell's scalp like you are implying, Baxter.
I didn't write anything in this post.
Locus Bring'r <horchata12839@gmail.com> wrote in news:md2nbsFqgilU2 @mid.individual.net:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:104giej$2uhgq$2@dont-email.me:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some >>>>> news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it >>>>>> would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen Colbert >>>> that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting, mass
destruction doesn't matter.
They didn't matter to the "rioting looting
and mass destruction" caused by your Jan 6
heroes. Who is going to pay for THAT?
$30 Million In Damages From Pro-Trump Riot
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
https://tinyurl.com/bddt46jh
That wasn't looting, it was taking legitimate souvenirs.
LOL!
That's rich.
"Your honor, my client is not a thief, he was
just admiring this man's car and took the catalytic
converter as a souvenir"
On 7/8/2025 5:40 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:104h38n$32073$1@dont-
email.me...
Scout wrote:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted some >>>>> news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage of it >>>>>> would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose into the
situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen Colbert >>>> that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting, mass
destruction doesn't matter.
The protests were confined to a few blocks near a Home Depot. The city was not
burning down.
So, according to you unless the "city is burning down" then any damage, vandalism, theft, even personal assaults can just be ignored?
No, scooter. That's just your straw man. He isn't saying that at all.
Ok, then all of the Jan 6th protesters are totally innocent of wrong doing
No, scooter, the insurrectionists are all guilty as fuck. Your straw man was shredded above.
In article <104hsnr$36jvc$1@dont-email.me>, bax02
_spamblock@baxcode.com says...
Locus Bring'r <horchata12839@gmail.com> wrote in news:md2nbsFqgilU2
@mid.individual.net:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:104giej$2uhgq$2@dont-email.me:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted
some news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage
of it would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose
into the situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out
yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen
Colbert that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was
about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting,
mass destruction doesn't matter.
They didn't matter to the "rioting looting
and mass destruction" caused by your Jan 6
heroes. Who is going to pay for THAT?
$30 Million In Damages From Pro-Trump Riot
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
https://tinyurl.com/bddt46jh
That wasn't looting, it was taking legitimate souvenirs. It's not
like they-carried out Mitch McConnell's scalp like you are
implying, Baxter.
I didn't write anything in this post.
Facts scare you?
In article <XnsB315D1EFEBEB0629555@185.151.15.190>,
noemail@aol.com says...
Locus Bring'r <horchata12839@gmail.com> wrote in news:md2nbsFqgilU2
@mid.individual.net:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:104giej$2uhgq$2@dont-email.me:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted
some news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage
of it would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose
into the situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out
yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen
Colbert that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was
about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting,
mass destruction doesn't matter.
They didn't matter to the "rioting looting
and mass destruction" caused by your Jan 6
heroes. Who is going to pay for THAT?
$30 Million In Damages From Pro-Trump Riot
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
https://tinyurl.com/bddt46jh
That wasn't looting, it was taking legitimate souvenirs.
LOL!
That's rich.
"Your honor, my client is not a thief, he was
just admiring this man's car and took the catalytic
converter as a souvenir"
Did that work for your side that burned and spray painted
innocent peoples car Mr. BUTWHATABOUT?
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the statement.
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in MorseHere's what I said:
code:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the
statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in MorseHere's what I said:
code:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the
statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100%
certainty."
And that is, of course, wrong.
Science has established with 100%
certainty that viruses cause disease,
that vaccines work, that the Earth
is round, that the Moon landings
happened, that thare was no Noah
flood, that the speed of light has
been established, that the age of
Earth has been established, that
faith healing is a fiction, that
climate change is real, that
evolution happpens.
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in MorseHere's what I said:
code:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the
statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100%
certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
Skeeter OG <invalid@none.com> wrote in news:MPG.42d82384686e62b98a421@usnews.blocknews.net:
In article <XnsB315D1EFEBEB0629555@185.151.15.190>,
noemail@aol.com says...
Locus Bring'r <horchata12839@gmail.com> wrote in news:md2nbsFqgilU2
@mid.individual.net:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
news:104giej$2uhgq$2@dont-email.me:
"chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:104eq75$2ep2h$4@dont-email.me...
Jon Brady wrote:
On 20 Jun 2025, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> posted
some news:1034jvl$8qov$1@dont-email.me:
Jon Brady wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
<irrelevant mathematics snipped>
Now present the total area of LA and tell us what percentage
of it would have burned, had Trump not stuck his orange nose
into the situation and then lied about it.
Get to work, bright boy. Impress us and figure it out
yourself.
Los Angeles is bigger than podunk villages out east. Stephen
Colbert that the couple blocks where the protests occurred was
about 0.01%.
I see.. so as long as the city is big enough.. rioting, looting,
mass destruction doesn't matter.
They didn't matter to the "rioting looting
and mass destruction" caused by your Jan 6
heroes. Who is going to pay for THAT?
$30 Million In Damages From Pro-Trump Riot
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
https://tinyurl.com/bddt46jh
That wasn't looting, it was taking legitimate souvenirs.
LOL!
That's rich.
"Your honor, my client is not a thief, he was
just admiring this man's car and took the catalytic
converter as a souvenir"
Did that work for your side that burned and spray painted
innocent peoples car Mr. BUTWHATABOUT?
Did that work for your side that
invaded the US Capitol to steal furniture
and smear their shit on the walls?
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100%
certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100% >>>>> certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open
to change.
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100% >>>>>> certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% means? >>>> Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open
to change.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes it is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and feedback from the scientific communities.
You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g. chemistry and physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for example, there is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements at the deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics that underlies space flight,
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100% >>>>>>> certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% means? >>>>> Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open >>> to change.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes it
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and
feedback from the scientific communities.
You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g. chemistry and >> physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for example, there
is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements at the >> deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics that
underlies space flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a fireworks show?
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implementedIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrongopen
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>> >to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide
to change.
(sometimes it
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and
feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes lasted centuries.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is objective.
If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we make up experiment results so they can prove they are objective.
Science produces useful results whether it is correct or not. Life is
easier if you accept some things you cannot know.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes it is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and feedback from the scientific communities.It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open
to change.
He's not using science:-)You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g. chemistry and
physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for example, there
is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements at the
deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics that >>> >>underlies space flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a fireworks show?
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 23:21:46 -0500, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100% >>>>>> certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% means? >>>> Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open
to change.
You are moving the goal posts. That is not what was originally
claimed. Nobody said science was infallible. A claim was made that
science had determined some facts with certainty and a few examples
were given. You have responded by insisting that science does NOT
ever find out anything with certainty. Aside from being wrong, you're changing the topic.
On Sat, 12 Jul 2025 23:21:46 -0500, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100% >>>>>> certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% means? >>>> Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open
to change.
You are moving the goal posts. That is not what was originally
claimed. Nobody said science was infallible. A claim was made that
science had determined some facts with certainty and a few examples
were given. You have responded by insisting that science does NOT
ever find out anything with certainty. Aside from being wrong, you're changing the topic.
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes itIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open >>> >to change.
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and
feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes lasted centuries.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is objective.
If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we make up experiment results so they can prove they are objective.
Science produces useful results whether it is correct or not.
Life is easier if you accept some things you cannot know.
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes itIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open >>>>> to change.
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and
feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes lasted
centuries.
That's some mess of "logic" you just dropped there.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is objective.
If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we make up experiment
results so they can prove they are objective.
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science produces useful results whether it is correct or not.
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
Life is easier if you accept some things you cannot know.
You set up the strawman of "science knows everything" only to knock it
down.
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes itIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open >>>>>> to change.
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and >>>> feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes lasted
centuries.
That's some mess of "logic" you just dropped there.
I understood it just fine, layman. I don't think that it's that I have
any greater reading comprehension than you, it's that I am not opposed
to the author and intentionally misreading.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is objective. >>> If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we make up experiment
results so they can prove they are objective.
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science is all about serving the majority.
Science produces useful results whether it is correct or not.
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
No, I had a great chemistry teacher in middle school who let us know his
Ph.D thesis was a failure - they showed thAT it was not possible to get
the result they wanted. Can you see any benefit in that?
Life is easier if you accept some things you cannot know.
You set up the strawman of "science knows everything" only to knock it
down.
Mmm. Good.
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in MorseHere's what I said:
code:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the
statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100%
certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100% >>>>> certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong and
it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up to
date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open to change.
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes itIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open >>>>> to change.
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and
feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes lasted
centuries.
That's some mess of "logic" you just dropped there.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is objective.
If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we make up experiment
results so they can prove they are objective.
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science produces useful results whether it is correct or not.
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
Life is easier if you accept some things you cannot know.
You set up the strawman of "science knows everything" only to knock it
down.
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>> 100%
certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100%
means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open >>> to change.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented
(sometimes it
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and
feedback from the scientific communities.
You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g. chemistry
and
physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for example,
there
is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements at
the
deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics that
underlies space flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a fireworks
show?
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
He's not using science:-)You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g.
chemistry and
physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for
example, there
is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements
at the
deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics
that
underlies space flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a fireworks
show?
The point of NASA was to find all the ways to blow up rockets and not
repeat.
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes itIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open >>>>>> to change.
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and >>>> feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes lasted
centuries.
That's some mess of "logic" you just dropped there.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is objective. >>> If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we make up experiment
results so they can prove they are objective.
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
It is if you are unaware of the limitations.
Science produces useful results whether it is correct or not.
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
Life is easier if you accept some things you cannot know.
You set up the strawman of "science knows everything" only to knock it
down.
It modus tollens or proof by contradiction.
You assume a statement you wish to disprove, show this assumption leads
to problems, and that proves the statement is wrong. It is a valid and productive method of deduction as long as you keep your focus.
From my experience uncertainty/incompleteness is embedded in every part
of the universe. In comes from the difference between aleph-0 and
aleph-1. The assumption resolves some annoying contradiction.
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science is all about serving the majority.
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
No, I had a great chemistry teacher in middle school who let us know
his Ph.D thesis was a failure - they showed thAT it was not possible
to get the result they wanted. Can you see any benefit in that?
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message news:mdhjckFc2cqU1@mid.individual.net...
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>>> 100%
certainty."
    The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100%
means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide
open
to change.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented
(sometimes it
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and
feedback from the scientific communities.
You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g.
chemistry and
physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for
example, there
is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements
at the
deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics that
underlies space flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a fireworks
show?
Because there is a gap between science and engineering. Which is why engineers regularly include a "safety factor". A space ship as a very
small safety factor and the interaction between the engineering, science
and reality shows were issues were ignored or improperly
applied/understood between in the interactions between every component
and between thosw components and reality. Why? Because we simply can
not, currently, know these until put under real world testing. We think
we have the science right.. but SOB sometimes elements arise that either
were not considered or which we knew nothing about.
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in MorseHere's what I said:
code:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the
statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100%
certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100%
means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in news:mdk8omFpn4uU1@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science is all about serving the majority.
WTF?
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
No, I had a great chemistry teacher in middle school who let us know
his Ph.D thesis was a failure - they showed thAT it was not possible
to get the result they wanted. Can you see any benefit in that?
Clearly you do NOT understand the Scientific Method. Science is not ever about 'getting the result you want' - that is anti-science.
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implementedIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is
brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I >>>>>> contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is
wide open
to change.
(sometimes it
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and >>>> feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes lasted
centuries.
That's some mess of "logic" you just dropped there.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is objective. >>> If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we make up experiment
results so they can prove they are objective.
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
It is if you are unaware of the limitations.
Science produces useful results whether it is correct or not.
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
Life is easier if you accept some things you cannot know.
You set up the strawman of "science knows everything" only to knock it
down.
It modus tollens or proof by contradiction.
You assume a statement you wish to disprove, show this assumption leads
to problems, and that proves the statement is wrong. It is a valid and productive method of deduction as long as you keep your focus.
From my experience uncertainty/incompleteness is embedded in every part
of the universe. In comes from the difference between aleph-0 and
aleph-1. The assumption resolves some annoying contradiction.
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes itIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>>>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I >>>>>>> contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open
to change.
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and >>>>> feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes lasted >>>> centuries.
That's some mess of "logic" you just dropped there.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is objective. >>>> If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we make up experiment >>>> results so they can prove they are objective.
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
It is if you are unaware of the limitations.
Actually, the big problem these days is people rejecting science they
don't like.
Science produces useful results whether it is correct or not.
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
Life is easier if you accept some things you cannot know.
You set up the strawman of "science knows everything" only to knock it
down.
It modus tollens or proof by contradiction.
You assume a statement you wish to disprove, show this assumption leads
to problems, and that proves the statement is wrong. It is a valid and
productive method of deduction as long as you keep your focus.
As I said, strawman. Trivial.
From my experience uncertainty/incompleteness is embedded in every part
of the universe. In comes from the difference between aleph-0 and
aleph-1. The assumption resolves some annoying contradiction.
Haw haw haw you funny.
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message news:mdgqiqF82e4U2@mid.individual.net...
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100% >>>>>> certainty."
   The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% means? >>>> Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide
open to change.
And yet it has.... true, not all the time, and certainly not about every topic, but here you are asserting the very absolute you are asserting is never accurate.
because it doesn't know if it's done searching.
Science has never said anything with certainty
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:Now I think you're trolling me to see if I'll produce a flailing
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes itIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>>>>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I >>>>>>>> contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open
to change.
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and >>>>>> feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes lasted >>>>> centuries.
That's some mess of "logic" you just dropped there.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is objective. >>>>> If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we make up experiment >>>>> results so they can prove they are objective.
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
It is if you are unaware of the limitations.
Actually, the big problem these days is people rejecting science they
don't like.
Science produces useful results whether it is correct or not.
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
Life is easier if you accept some things you cannot know.
You set up the strawman of "science knows everything" only to knock it >>>> down.
It modus tollens or proof by contradiction.
You assume a statement you wish to disprove, show this assumption leads
to problems, and that proves the statement is wrong. It is a valid and
productive method of deduction as long as you keep your focus.
As I said, strawman. Trivial.
From my experience uncertainty/incompleteness is embedded in every part >>> of the universe. In comes from the difference between aleph-0 and
aleph-1. The assumption resolves some annoying contradiction.
Haw haw haw you funny.
response defending siri for a SECOND time.
Proof by contradiction is a perfectly valid form of mathematical proof.
Proof by contradiction is a perfectly valid form of mathematical proof.Siri is applying it to*science*.
On 7/14/2025 5:53 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mdgqiqF82e4U2@mid.individual.net...
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>> 100%
certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100%
means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never*
said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open >>> to change.
And yet
A scooterism
Scout wrote:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mdhjckFc2cqU1@mid.individual.net...
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >>>>
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never* >>>>>> said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has saidHere's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>>>> 100%
certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>> means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll. >>>>>>
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide
open
to change.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented
(sometimes it
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and >>>> feedback from the scientific communities.
You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g.
chemistry and
physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for example, >>>> there
is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements at >>>> the
deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics that >>>> underlies space flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a fireworks
show?
Because there is a gap between science and engineering. Which is why
engineers regularly include a "safety factor". A space ship as a very
small safety factor and the interaction between the engineering, science
and reality shows were issues were ignored or improperly
applied/understood between in the interactions between every component
and between thosw components and reality. Why? Because we simply can not,
currently, know these until put under real world testing. We think we
have the science right.. but SOB sometimes elements arise that either
were not considered or which we knew nothing about.
I'm gonna disagree.
I don't feel that issues were ignored or improperly applied.
I feel that rockets are such a complex system that if any one thing goes wrong (such as the O rings for Challenger) the whole system goes to Draper and gets fucked.
You can't build a safety factor for any one fuck up in the whole system.
You basically have to find out the hard way - Russia solved many of our >problems because they blew up a megaton of rockets getting into space. NASA >took this to heart. Elon is reinventing the wheel in many ways and playing >catch up in my opinion.
On 7/14/2025 5:59 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mdhjckFc2cqU1@mid.individual.net...
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse code: >>>>
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never* >>>>>> said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has saidHere's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>>>> 100%
certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>> means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll. >>>>>>
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide
open
to change.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented
(sometimes it
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and >>>> feedback from the scientific communities.
You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g.
chemistry and
physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for example, >>>> there
is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements at >>>> the
deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics that >>>> underlies space flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a fireworks
show?
Because there is a gap between science and engineering.
Muskrat understands neither, scooter.
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in news:mdk8omFpn4uU1@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science is all about serving the majority.
WTF?
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
No, I had a great chemistry teacher in middle school who let us know
his Ph.D thesis was a failure - they showed thAT it was not possible
to get the result they wanted. Can you see any benefit in that?
Clearly you do NOT understand the Scientific Method. Science is not ever about 'getting the result you want' - that is anti-science.
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in MorseHere's what I said:
code:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the
statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or 100% >>>>> certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because science
has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty." And that's a
true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science never "proves" anything
at all.
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message news:mdkmkoFrv2aU1@mid.individual.net...
Scout wrote:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mdhjckFc2cqU1@mid.individual.net...
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse
code:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never* >>>>>>> said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said >>>>>>> *many* things with absolute certainty.Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>>> or 100%
certainty."
    The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>>> means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll. >>>>>>>
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is
brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I >>>>>> contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is
wide open
to change.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented
(sometimes it
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review
and
feedback from the scientific communities.
You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g.
chemistry and
physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for
example, there
is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements
at the
deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics
that
underlies space flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a
fireworks show?
Because there is a gap between science and engineering. Which is why
engineers regularly include a "safety factor". A space ship as a very
small safety factor and the interaction between the engineering,
science and reality shows were issues were ignored or improperly
applied/understood between in the interactions between every
component and between thosw components and reality. Why? Because we
simply can not, currently, know these until put under real world
testing. We think we have the science right.. but SOB sometimes
elements arise that either were not considered or which we knew
nothing about.
I'm gonna disagree.
I don't feel that issues were ignored or improperly applied.
I never said they were ignored or improperly applied, I'm simply stating
you have a mass design which pushes the downward limit of safety factors
(to save weight) and subjecting it to conditions that can't be totally
tested on the ground or even by computer simulation (as the simulation
is only as good as your knowledge of the inputs and interactions).
Rather I recognize that there is a legitimate purpose and need for
actual flight testing.. and shit is probably going to go wrong during
it. Unlike an airplane you can't apply minimal forces and then slowly increase loadings and conditions. It's a rocket in flight.. it either
goes. or it doesn't. There are no half measures.
I feel that rockets are such a complex system that if any one thing
goes wrong (such as the O rings for Challenger) the whole system goes
to Draper and gets fucked.
Exactly and you never know which systems they will be.
You can't build a safety factor for any one fuck up in the whole
system. You basically have to find out the hard way - Russia solved
many of our problems because they blew up a megaton of rockets getting
into space. NASA took this to heart. Elon is reinventing the wheel in
many ways and playing catch up in my opinion.
In some ways, in others he is doing things that have never been tried
before using technologies that didn't even exist until he created them.
Shit is going to fail. That's why we have such testing. Even a mature
area like airplane design (with a larger safety factor) still undergo extensive testing until they are flight certified.
indeed those that complain we've not been back to the Moon because we
"lost the technology" don't know what they are talking about. Under
current rules a Saturn V wouldn't be flight certified, much less for
human cargo. That's not even considering how inefficient the design was.
It was designed and build for one purpose. To get to the moon before the Russians, and hopefully without killing to many people in the process.
So, now, pushing the boundaries as Musk is doing... shit is going to
happen, often minor, rarely major and perhaps on rare occasions even catastrophic. To suggest anything else is to be a narrow minded fool as
some here seem to be when they suggest every flight should be perfect
each time, every time, all the time.
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented (sometimes itIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>>>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I >>>>>>> contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide open
to change.
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review and >>>>> feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes lasted >>>> centuries.
That's some mess of "logic" you just dropped there.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is objective. >>>> If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we make up experiment >>>> results so they can prove they are objective.
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
It is if you are unaware of the limitations.
Actually, the big problem these days is people rejecting science they
don't like.
On 2025-07-14, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implementedIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is >>>>>>>> wrong and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and >>>>>>>> is brought up to date. There is always some subtle change
around the corner, I contend. It cannot speak with absolute
certainty because it is wide open to change.
(sometimes it is not), it has strict controls on how it is done,
with peer review and feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes
lasted centuries.
That's some mess of "logic" you just dropped there.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is
objective. If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we
make up experiment results so they can prove they are objective.
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
It is if you are unaware of the limitations.
Actually, the big problem these days is people rejecting science they
don't like.
Flatten the curve in 10 days.
Masks work agains COVID.
Masks don't work against COVID.
So now 2 masks work against COVID.
The vax prevents transmission of COVID.
ETC.
While MOST science is honest, there is a large faction of "science"
that is simply preserving their next grant to fund their never ending research.
The system is corrupt.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 12:00:48 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom
<OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Premise:
because it doesn't know if it's done searching.
Conclusion:
Science has never said anything with certainty
Wrong.
(done with this troll)
Ditto.
He had a promising start though.
Free hint. The Saturn V engines has serious issues with this as they regularly blew up. Yet they kept trying different ideas until they
figured out the science that would allow them to produce those engines.
Sure, you can call it engineering, but engineering is based on the
science. If the science is screwed up, so will the engineering.
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message news:mdkmkoFrv2aU1@mid.individual.net...
Scout wrote:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mdhjckFc2cqU1@mid.individual.net...
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse
code:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never* >>>>>>> said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said >>>>>>> *many* things with absolute certainty.Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>>> or 100%
certainty."
    The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>>> means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll. >>>>>>>
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is
brought up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I >>>>>> contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is
wide open
to change.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented
(sometimes it
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review
and
feedback from the scientific communities.
You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g.
chemistry and
physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for
example, there
is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements
at the
deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics
that
underlies space flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a
fireworks show?
Because there is a gap between science and engineering. Which is why
engineers regularly include a "safety factor". A space ship as a very
small safety factor and the interaction between the engineering,
science and reality shows were issues were ignored or improperly
applied/understood between in the interactions between every
component and between thosw components and reality. Why? Because we
simply can not, currently, know these until put under real world
testing. We think we have the science right.. but SOB sometimes
elements arise that either were not considered or which we knew
nothing about.
I'm gonna disagree.
I don't feel that issues were ignored or improperly applied.
I never said they were ignored or improperly applied, I'm simply stating
you have a mass design which pushes the downward limit of safety factors
(to save weight) and subjecting it to conditions that can't be totally
tested on the ground or even by computer simulation (as the simulation
is only as good as your knowledge of the inputs and interactions).
Rather I recognize that there is a legitimate purpose and need for
actual flight testing.. and shit is probably going to go wrong during
it. Unlike an airplane you can't apply minimal forces and then slowly increase loadings and conditions. It's a rocket in flight.. it either
goes. or it doesn't. There are no half measures.
I feel that rockets are such a complex system that if any one thing
goes wrong (such as the O rings for Challenger) the whole system goes
to Draper and gets fucked.
Exactly and you never know which systems they will be.
You can't build a safety factor for any one fuck up in the whole
system. You basically have to find out the hard way - Russia solved
many of our problems because they blew up a megaton of rockets getting
into space. NASA took this to heart. Elon is reinventing the wheel in
many ways and playing catch up in my opinion.
In some ways, in others he is doing things that have never been tried
before using technologies that didn't even exist until he created them.
Shit is going to fail. That's why we have such testing. Even a mature
area like airplane design (with a larger safety factor) still undergo extensive testing until they are flight certified.
indeed those that complain we've not been back to the Moon because we
"lost the technology" don't know what they are talking about. Under
current rules a Saturn V wouldn't be flight certified, much less for
human cargo. That's not even considering how inefficient the design was.
It was designed and build for one purpose. To get to the moon before the Russians, and hopefully without killing to many people in the process.
So, now, pushing the boundaries as Musk is doing... shit is going to
happen, often minor, rarely major and perhaps on rare occasions even catastrophic. To suggest anything else is to be a narrow minded fool as
some here seem to be when they suggest every flight should be perfect
each time, every time, all the time.
On 7/14/2025 10:12 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klegatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:juadQ.152362$YCgd.64931@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:59 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mdhjckFc2cqU1@mid.individual.net...
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse
code:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with
absolute or 100% certainty."
    The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what
100% means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are >>>>>>>>> off topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has
*never* said anything with absolute certainty. In fact,
science has said *many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is >>>>>>> wrong and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and >>>>>>> is brought up to date. There is always some subtle change
around the corner, I contend. It cannot speak with absolute
certainty because it is wide open to change.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented
(sometimes it is not), it has strict controls on how it is done,
with peer review and feedback from the scientific communities.
You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g.
chemistry and physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In
physics, for example, there is no "mistaken information". Rather,
there are ongoing refinements at the deep end as accelerators
provide ever higher energies. The physics that underlies space
flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a
fireworks show?
Because there is a gap between science and engineering.
Muskrat understands neither, scooter.
That's ok, because you understand
everything worth understanding
On 7/14/2025 9:59 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klyvatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ztadQ.152361$YCgd.102354@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:53 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mdgqiqF82e4U2@mid.individual.net...
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>> or 100% certainty."
   The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>> means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are off
topic, troll.
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has
*never* said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science >>>>>> has said *many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is
wrong and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is >>>>> brought up to date. There is always some subtle change around the
corner, I contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because
it is wide open to change.
And yet
A scooterism
A Rudism.
No, scooter. When I point
On 7/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:105361o$3fck1$2@dont-email.me...
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
news:mdk8omFpn4uU1@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science is all about serving the majority.
WTF?
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and
findings.
No, I had a great chemistry teacher in middle school who let us
know his Ph.D thesis was a failure - they showed thAT it was not
possible to get the result they wanted. Can you see any benefit
in that?
Clearly you do NOT understand the Scientific Method. Science is
not ever about 'getting the result you want' - that is anti-science.
actually
Another scooterism
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking inHere's what I said:
Morse code:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the
statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>> 100% certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100%
means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, >>>>> troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
On 14 Jul 2025, Klaus Schadenfreude <kurbatt@gmail.com> posted some news:4dcdQ.458279$V4j4.7325@fx46.iad:
On 7/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:105361o$3fck1$2@dont-email.me...
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
news:mdk8omFpn4uU1@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science is all about serving the majority.
WTF?
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and
findings.
No, I had a great chemistry teacher in middle school who let us
know his Ph.D thesis was a failure - they showed thAT it was not
possible to get the result they wanted. Can you see any benefit >>>>> in that?
Clearly you do NOT understand the Scientific Method. Science is >>>> not ever about 'getting the result you want' - that is anti-science.
actually
Another scooterism
Rudy continues down the loquacious pathway to hypocrisy.
pothead <pothead@snakebite.com> wrote in
news:10548of$3msd5$1@dont-email.me:
On 2025-07-14, Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:No.
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
chine.bleu wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implementedIt has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is >>>>>>>>> wrong and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and >>>>>>>>> is brought up to date. There is always some subtle change
around the corner, I contend. It cannot speak with absolute
certainty because it is wide open to change.
(sometimes it is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, >>>>>>> with peer review and feedback from the scientific communities.
Self-correcting is an assumption. It is assumed mistakes will be
revealed by subsequent contradictions. We have examples of people
ignoring revealing contradictions. Also examples where mistakes
lasted centuries.
That's some mess of "logic" you just dropped there.
Science makes assumptions about the universe, like reality is
objective. If this is wrong and we make up reality as we go, we
make up experiment results so they can prove they are objective.
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
It is if you are unaware of the limitations.
Actually, the big problem these days is people rejecting science they
don't like.
Flatten the curve in 10 days.
Masks work agains COVID.
Masks don't work against COVID.
So now 2 masks work against COVID.
The vax prevents transmission of COVID.
ETC.
While MOST science is honest, there is a large faction of "science"
that is simply preserving their next grant to fund their never ending
research.
The system is corrupt.
You are an idiot.
On 7/14/2025 9:59 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klyvatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ztadQ.152361$YCgd.102354@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:53 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message >>>> news:mdgqiqF82e4U2@mid.individual.net...
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never* >>>>>> said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has saidHere's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>>>> 100%
certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>> means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll. >>>>>>
*many* things with absolute certainty.
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is wrong >>>>> and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought up >>>>> to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I
contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide
open to change.
And yet
A scooterism
A Rudism.
No, scooter.
On 14 Jul 2025, Klaus Schadenfreude <kurgatt@gmail.com> posted some news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad:
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in >>>>>>> news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking inHere's what I said:
Morse code:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>>> 100% certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100%
means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic,
troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
It's not a theory. It's a scientific fact as are the following.
If we were both standing on the same sea level plane, the distance to
the horizon for you would be 1.5 miles because of the earth's curvature
and your diminutive height.
For me, it would be 3.08 miles because I'm taller than you. You'd also
see the sun set before I would if that's any consolation.
On 7/14/2025 10:12 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klegatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:juadQ.152362$YCgd.64931@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:59 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message >>>> news:mdhjckFc2cqU1@mid.individual.net...
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse
code:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" wrote:
But that's not what you wrote. You wrote that science has *never* >>>>>>>> said anything with absolute certainty. In fact, science has said >>>>>>>> *many* things with absolute certainty.Here's what I said:
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>>>>>> 100%
certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>>>> means?
Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, troll. >>>>>>>>
It has not because science corrects itself all the time. It is
wrong
and it corrects itself. It has mistaken information and is brought >>>>>>> up
to date. There is always some subtle change around the corner, I >>>>>>> contend. It cannot speak with absolute certainty because it is wide >>>>>>> open
to change.
Science is not "wide open" to change. When properly implemented
(sometimes it
is not), it has strict controls on how it is done, with peer review >>>>>> and
feedback from the scientific communities.
You also need to distinguish between the "hard" sciences (e.g.
chemistry and
physics) and "soft" sciences (e.g. sociology). In physics, for
example, there
is no "mistaken information". Rather, there are ongoing refinements >>>>>> at the
deep end as accelerators provide ever higher energies. The physics >>>>>> that
underlies space flight,
Then why can't Elon launch a space ship without putting on a fireworks >>>>> show?
Because there is a gap between science and engineering.
Muskrat understands neither, scooter.
That's ok, because you understand
everything worth understanding
On 7/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:105361o$3fck1$2@dont-email.me...
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
news:mdk8omFpn4uU1@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science is all about serving the majority.
WTF?
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and findings.
No, I had a great chemistry teacher in middle school who let us know
his Ph.D thesis was a failure - they showed thAT it was not possible
to get the result they wanted. Can you see any benefit in that?
Clearly you do NOT understand the Scientific Method. Science is not
ever
about 'getting the result you want' - that is anti-science.
actually
Another scooterism — empty wheeze.
Scout wrote:
Free hint. The Saturn V engines has serious issues with this as they
regularly blew up. Yet they kept trying different ideas until they
figured out the science that would allow them to produce those engines.
Sure, you can call it engineering, but engineering is based on the
science. If the science is screwed up, so will the engineering.
Sounds like they stopped using science and started kludging instead.
On 14 Jul 2025, Klaus Schadenfreude <kurbatt@gmail.com> posted some news:4dcdQ.458279$V4j4.7325@fx46.iad:
On 7/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:105361o$3fck1$2@dont-email.me...
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
news:mdk8omFpn4uU1@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science is all about serving the majority.
WTF?
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and
findings.
No, I had a great chemistry teacher in middle school who let us
know his Ph.D thesis was a failure - they showed thAT it was not
possible to get the result they wanted.Ã, Can you see any benefit
in that?
Clearly you do NOT understand the Scientific Method.Ã, Science is
not ever about 'getting the result you want' - that is anti-science.
actually
Another scooterism
Rudy continues down the loquacious pathway to hypocrisy.
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message >>>> news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse >>>>>>>> code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the
statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>> 100%
certainty."
The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100%
means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic,
troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because science
has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty." And that's a
true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science never "proves"
anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually flat
despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical, scooter? You fucking dope.
Maybe Water is NOT H2O but actually something else?
Same again, scooter. The earth being an oblate spheroid and water being comprised of hydrogen and oxygen are not "prove" by science, scooter. They are observed facts.
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kurgatt@gmail.com> wrote in message news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad...
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied: >>>
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in >>>>>>> news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in Morse >>>>>>>>> code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>>> 100%
certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100%
means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, >>>>>> troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
So you are saying that science is saying an absolute or 100% centainty.
And here you just claimed they never did...
Maybe Water is NOT H2O but actually something else?
Same again, scooter. The earth being an oblate spheroid and water
being comprised of hydrogen and oxygen are not "prove" by science,
scooter. They are observed facts.
Which is science and which you claim never makes such absolutes and thus according to you water could actually be made of something else.
Well, that didn't take long to get you to refute your very own claims.
Rudy loses yet again, and shows his claims can NOT be accepted as factual.
On 14 Jul 2025, Klaus Schadenfreude <kurbatt@gmail.com> posted some news:4dcdQ.458279$V4j4.7325@fx46.iad:That's right, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and draft dodger and Social Security dole scrounger.
On 7/14/2025 10:17 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:105361o$3fck1$2@dont-email.me...
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
news:mdk8omFpn4uU1@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
You make it sound like science is mass hysteria.
Science is all about serving the majority.
WTF?
Uh, no. Useful results derive from correct experiments and
findings.
No, I had a great chemistry teacher in middle school who let us
know his Ph.D thesis was a failure - they showed thAT it was not
possible to get the result they wanted. Can you see any benefit
in that?
Clearly you do NOT understand the Scientific Method. Science is
not ever about 'getting the result you want' - that is anti-science.
actually
Another scooterism
Rudy continues kicking the asses of dumbfuck right-wingnuts like scooter and me.
On 14 Jul 2025, Klaus Schadenfreude <kurgatt@gmail.com> posted some news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad:
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in >>>>>>> news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking inHere's what I said:
Morse code:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute or >>>>>>>> 100% certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100%
means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are off topic, >>>>>> troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
It's not a theory.
It's a scientific fact as
On 7/15/2025 5:22 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in message
news:mdm3npF4jguU3@mid.individual.net...
Scout wrote:
Free hint. The Saturn V engines has serious issues with this as they
regularly blew up.
*NO* Saturn rockets ever "blew up," scooter, you stupid fucking liar.
On 15 Jul 2025, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> posted some news:mdn00nF952jU1@mid.individual.net:
burch cassidy wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025, Klaus Schadenfreude <kurgatt@gmail.com> posted someWhat a burn. It took you an hour to come up with that.
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad:
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled
and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>>> or 100% certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>>> means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are
off topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
It's not a theory. It's a scientific fact as are the following.
If we were both standing on the same sea level plane, the distance to
the horizon for you would be 1.5 miles because of the earth's
curvature and your diminutive height.
For me, it would be 3.08 miles because I'm taller than you. You'd
also see the sun set before I would if that's any consolation.
Na, a minute or so, basic trig. Same sort of calcs you'd use for cell
tower LOS, MLRS or M155 firing solutions, others.
burch cassidy wrote:
On 14 Jul 2025, Klaus Schadenfreude <kurgatt@gmail.com> posted someWhat a burn. It took you an hour to come up with that.
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad:
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled
and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote
in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>> or 100% certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>> means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are
off topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
It's not a theory. It's a scientific fact as are the following.
If we were both standing on the same sea level plane, the distance to
the horizon for you would be 1.5 miles because of the earth's
curvature and your diminutive height.
For me, it would be 3.08 miles because I'm taller than you. You'd
also see the sun set before I would if that's any consolation.
Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kurgatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad...
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled
and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote
in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>> or 100%
certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>> means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are off
topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
So you are saying that science is saying an absolute or 100%
centainty.
Where do you see him saying that? The Earth is not spherical. In fact
it's more oblong than a perfect sphere. The equator juts out notably.
Or were you saying science says with absolute certainty that the shape
of the Earth is pretty much what it is? There you have it, scooter
disproved me. Science still has the IDENTITY PROPERTY: a = a. Green
is green, a gas is a gas, a liquid is a liquid, a solid is a solid.
Science DOES say this with absolute certainty and I am disproven.
Thank goodness: this was getting loud.
And here you just claimed they never did...
Maybe Water is NOT H2O but actually something else?
Same again, scooter. The earth being an oblate spheroid and water
being comprised of hydrogen and oxygen are not "prove" by science,
scooter. They are observed facts.
Which is science and which you claim never makes such absolutes and
thus according to you water could actually be made of something else.
Well, that didn't take long to get you to refute your very own
claims.
Rudy loses yet again, and shows his claims can NOT be accepted as
factual.
On 15 Jul 2025, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby"
<wichitajayhawks@msn.com> posted some
news:mdn6gtFa7f5U1@mid.individual.net:
Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kurgatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad...
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled
and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>>> or 100%
certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what
100% means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are >>>>>>>> off topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
So you are saying that science is saying an absolute or 100%
centainty.
Where do you see him saying that? The Earth is not spherical. In
fact it's more oblong than a perfect sphere. The equator juts out
notably. Or were you saying science says with absolute certainty that
the shape of the Earth is pretty much what it is? There you have it,
scooter disproved me. Science still has the IDENTITY PROPERTY: a =
a. Green is green, a gas is a gas, a liquid is a liquid, a solid is a
solid. Science DOES say this with absolute certainty and I am
disproven. Thank goodness: this was getting loud.
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York have centrifugal force
to thank for the "bulge" at the middle and absence of flooding. Earth
spins a bit over 1,000 MPH at the equator. Excess arctic melt has to
go somewhere, so it accumulates where you'd expect fat would.
And here you just claimed they never did...
Maybe Water is NOT H2O but actually something else?
Same again, scooter. The earth being an oblate spheroid and water
being comprised of hydrogen and oxygen are not "prove" by science,
scooter. They are observed facts.
Which is science and which you claim never makes such absolutes and
thus according to you water could actually be made of something
else.
Well, that didn't take long to get you to refute your very own
claims.
Rudy loses yet again, and shows his claims can NOT be accepted as
factual.
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York have centrifugal forceSomehow that makes you sound like an idiot.
to thank for the "bulge" at the middle and absence of flooding. Earth
spins a bit over 1,000 MPH at the equator. Excess arctic melt has to
go somewhere, so it accumulates where you'd expect fat would.
On 15 Jul 2025, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> posted some news:mdn6gtFa7f5U1@mid.individual.net:
Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kurgatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad...
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled
and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>>> or 100%
certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>>> means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are off
topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
So you are saying that science is saying an absolute or 100%
centainty.
Where do you see him saying that? The Earth is not spherical. In fact
it's more oblong than a perfect sphere. The equator juts out notably.
Or were you saying science says with absolute certainty that the shape
of the Earth is pretty much what it is? There you have it, scooter
disproved me. Science still has the IDENTITY PROPERTY: a = a. Green
is green, a gas is a gas, a liquid is a liquid, a solid is a solid.
Science DOES say this with absolute certainty and I am disproven.
Thank goodness: this was getting loud.
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York
burch cassidy <bcassidy@ucla.edu> wrote in news:20250716.013201.4726d1cc@msgid.frell.theremailer.net:
On 15 Jul 2025, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby"
<wichitajayhawks@msn.com> posted some
news:mdn6gtFa7f5U1@mid.individual.net:
Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kurgatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad...
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled
and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in >>>>>>>> message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>> in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>>>> or 100%
certainty."
  The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what
100% means? Do you understand what absolute means? You are >>>>>>>>> off topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty." >>>>>>> And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
So you are saying that science is saying an absolute or 100%
centainty.
Where do you see him saying that? The Earth is not spherical. In
fact it's more oblong than a perfect sphere. The equator juts out
notably. Or were you saying science says with absolute certainty that
the shape of the Earth is pretty much what it is? There you have it,
scooter disproved me. Science still has the IDENTITY PROPERTY: a =
a. Green is green, a gas is a gas, a liquid is a liquid, a solid is a
solid. Science DOES say this with absolute certainty and I am
disproven. Thank goodness: this was getting loud.
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York have centrifugal force
to thank for the "bulge" at the middle and absence of flooding. Earth
spins a bit over 1,000 MPH at the equator. Excess arctic melt has to
go somewhere, so it accumulates where you'd expect fat would.
Somehow that makes you sound like an idiot.
On 15 Jul 2025, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> posted some news:mdn6gtFa7f5U1@mid.individual.net:
Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kurgatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad...
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled
and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in
message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote >>>>>>>>> in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>>> or 100%
certainty."
Ã, Ã, The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>>> means? Do you understand what absolute means?Ã, You are off
topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
So you are saying that science is saying an absolute or 100%
centainty.
Where do you see him saying that? The Earth is not spherical.
it's more oblong than a perfect sphere. The equator juts out notably.
Or were you saying science says with absolute certainty that the shape
of the Earth is pretty much what it is? There you have it, scooter
disproved me. Science still has the IDENTITY PROPERTY: a = a. Green
is green, a gas is a gas, a liquid is a liquid, a solid is a solid.
Science DOES say this with absolute certainty and I am disproven.
Thank goodness: this was getting loud.
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York have centrifugal force to
thank for the "bulge" at the middle and absence of flooding. Earth spins
a bit over 1,000 MPH at the equator. Excess arctic melt has to go
somewhere, so it accumulates where you'd expect fat would.
And here you just claimed they never did...
Maybe Water is NOT H2O but actually something else?
Same again, scooter. The earth being an oblate spheroid and water
being comprised of hydrogen and oxygen are not "prove" by science,
scooter. They are observed facts.
Which is science and which you claim never makes such absolutes and
thus according to you water could actually be made of something else.
Well, that didn't take long to get you to refute your very own
claims.
Rudy loses yet again, and shows his claims can NOT be accepted as
factual.
"burch cassidy" <bcassidy@ucla.edu> wrote in message news:20250716.013201.4726d1cc@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
On 15 Jul 2025, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com>
posted some news:mdn6gtFa7f5U1@mid.individual.net:
Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kurgatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad...
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled
and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in >>>>>>>> message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>> in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday.
Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>>>> or 100%
certainty."
Ã, Ã, The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>>>> means? Do you understand what absolute means?Ã, You are off >>>>>>>>> topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because
science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty." >>>>>>> And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science
never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually
flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
So you are saying that science is saying an absolute or 100%
centainty.
Where do you see him saying that? The Earth is not spherical.
spherical
adjective
spher·?i·?cal 'sfir-i-k?l 'sfer-
Synonyms of spherical
1: having the form of a sphere or of one of its segments
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spherical
spherical
Share
/'sfir?k?l/
/'sfir?k?l/
IPA guide
A ball is spherical; it's shaped like a sphere - a three-dimensional
version of the two-dimensional circle.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/spherical
So, yes, the Earth meets the very definition of spherical (ie
approximates a sphere).
But did I say it was spherical? No, I said it was a globe.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
globe
/glob/
noun
1.the earth.
"collecting goodies from all over the globe"
Similar:
world
earth
universe
planet
orb
2. a spherical or rounded object.
"orange trees clipped into giant globes"
So, yes, the Earth is a globe, and that globe is spherical,
Indeed if the Earth were the size of a billiard ball.. it's shape and tolerances would put it within WPA dimensional specifications for
billiard balls
http://www.curiouser.co.uk/facts/smooth_earth.htm
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal
intents and purposes is a sphere.
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal
intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I
wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However, according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the equatorial diameter being the larger.
That difference is 0.33% of the polar diameter — i.e., it's negligible.
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal intents >>>> and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I wouldn't >>> call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a valid
scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However, according to BBC
Science Focus Magazine, the difference between the equatorial and polar
diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the equatorial diameter being the larger. That >> difference is 0.33% of the polar diameter — i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where they launch rockets into
outer space is advantageous over Cape Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as
another benefit, the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets an additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the same direction as the spin.
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal
intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I
wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a valid
scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However, according to
BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between the equatorial and
polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the equatorial diameter being the
larger. That difference is 0.33% of the polar diameter — i.e., it's
negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching
Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where they
launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape Canaveral or
Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly less fuel due to
the bulge at the equator and, as another benefit, the spin of the
earth at the equator gives the rockets an additional boost into orbit
when the rocket is aimed in the same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth. There
is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial diameter vs the
polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / 26 mi. And the
advantage is almost exclusively for launches of satellites that are
intended for geostationary orbit.
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas McCain,"
"Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim Crow," "Steve
from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and subhuman Nazi
filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal
intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I
wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a
valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between the
equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the equatorial
diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% of the polar
diameter — i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching
Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where
they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly
less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another benefit,
the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets an additional
boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the same direction as
the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial diameter
vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / 26 mi. And
the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of satellites that
are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar, right? The
longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the object, a satellite.
This means that an elevated extra 42 km will produce more force than a
valley launch at the equator. It's okay though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas McCain," "Hisler,"
"DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a
drunk fucking child molester and subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal intents
and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I wouldn't
call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a valid
scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However, according to BBC >>>> Science Focus Magazine, the difference between the equatorial and polar >>>> diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the equatorial diameter being the larger. That
difference is 0.33% of the polar diameter — i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching Facility in
French Guyana near the equator in South America where they launch rockets >>> into outer space is advantageous over Cape Canaveral or Khazakstan in that >>> the rockets require significantly less fuel due to the bulge at the equator >>> and, as another benefit, the spin of the earth at the equator gives the
rockets an additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the same >>> direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth. There is no
advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial diameter vs the polar diameter,
as that difference is only 40 km / 26 mi. And the advantage is almost
exclusively for launches of satellites that are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar, right? The longer the
crowbar the more force impelled to the object, a satellite. This means that an
elevated extra 42 km will produce more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas McCain,"
"Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim Crow," "Steve
from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and subhuman Nazi
filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal >>>>>>> intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I >>>>>> wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a
valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between the
equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the equatorial
diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% of the polar
diameter — i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching
Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where
they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly
less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another benefit,
the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets an additional
boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the same direction as
the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial diameter
vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / 26 mi. And
the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of satellites that
are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar, right? The
longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the object, a satellite.
This means that an elevated extra 42 km will produce more force than a
valley launch at the equator. It's okay though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The advantage come
from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2 miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which translates to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the equator versus at Cape Canaveral. But the other big
advantage for launches to geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel
is required to adjust the position of the satellite, because the launch
angle is already a lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't "get"
what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same measure at the equator.
The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to the Kourou,
French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas McCain,"
"Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim Crow," "Steve from >>>> Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal >>>>>>>> intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I >>>>>>> wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a valid >>>>>> scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However, according to BBC >>>>>> Science Focus Magazine, the difference between the equatorial and polar >>>>>> diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the equatorial diameter being the larger. >>>>>> That difference is 0.33% of the polar diameter — i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching Facility
in French Guyana near the equator in South America where they launch >>>>> rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape Canaveral or Khazakstan
in that the rockets require significantly less fuel due to the bulge at the
equator and, as another benefit, the spin of the earth at the equator gives
the rockets an additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the
same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth. There is >>>> no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial diameter vs the polar >>>> diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / 26 mi. And the advantage is >>>> almost exclusively for launches of satellites that are intended for
geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar, right? The longer
the crowbar the more force impelled to the object, a satellite. This means >>> that an elevated extra 42 km will produce more force than a valley launch at
the equator. It's okay though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator being a
minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The advantage come from the
radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2 miles, versus only 3,496.9 at
28.3922° N latitude at Cape Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500
miles, which translates to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the >> equator versus at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for launches to
geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is required to adjust the
position of the satellite, because the launch angle is already a lot closer to
geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't "get" what the
bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between polar radius/diameter/ >> circumference versus the same measure at the equator. The additional 26 miles
is not what gives the advantage to the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape >> Canaveral.
If you are unwilling to listen to reason,
On 7/16/2025 12:17 PM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim Crow,"
"Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and subhuman
Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all
normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, >>>>>>>> I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a
valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between
the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the
equatorial diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% of >>>>>>> the polar diameter — i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching
Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where
they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly
less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another benefit, >>>>>> the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets an
additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the same
direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial diameter
vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / 26 mi.
And the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of satellites
that are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar, right?
The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the object, a
satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will produce more
force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay though. I'm a
Nazi filth too.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator being
a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The advantage
come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2 miles,
versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape Canaveral. That's
a difference of almost 500 miles, which translates to quite a lot of
additional linear velocity at the equator versus at Cape Canaveral.
But the other big advantage for launches to geostationary orbit is
that not as much fuel is required to adjust the position of the
satellite, because the launch angle is already a lot closer to
geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't "get"
what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between polar
radius/diameter/ circumference versus the same measure at the
equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to
the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
If you are unwilling to listen to reason,
You have yet to post any. You're the fuckwit unable to understand reason.
To repeat: it is *not* the difference between polar radius/diameter/circumference versus equatorial radius/diameter/circumference. It's the fact of the linear velocity at
the equator being substantially higher than the linear velocity at any
other latitude, *and* the site in French Guiana being nearly on the
equator, so that little adjustment is needed to the path of the
satellite to get it to geosynchronous orbit.
You just don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about.
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 12:17 PM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and
subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all >>>>>>>>>> normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a >>>>>>>> valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between >>>>>>>> the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the
equatorial diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% >>>>>>>> of the polar diameter — i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket
Launching Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South
America where they launch rockets into outer space is
advantageous over Cape Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the
rockets require significantly less fuel due to the bulge at the
equator and, as another benefit, the spin of the earth at the
equator gives the rockets an additional boost into orbit when
the rocket is aimed in the same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial
diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km
/ 26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of
satellites that are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar, right?
The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the object, a
satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will produce
more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay
though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2
miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which
translates to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the
equator versus at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for
launches to geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is
required to adjust the position of the satellite, because the
launch angle is already a lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between
polar radius/diameter/ circumference versus the same measure at the
equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to
the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
If you are unwilling to listen to reason,
You have yet to post any. You're the fuckwit unable to understand
reason.
To repeat: it is *not* the difference between polar
radius/diameter/circumference versus equatorial
radius/diameter/circumference. It's the fact of the linear velocity
at the equator being substantially higher than the linear velocity at
any other latitude, *and* the site in French Guiana being nearly on
the equator, so that little adjustment is needed to the path of the
satellite to get it to geosynchronous orbit.
You just don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about.
Bullshit. You dumb asinine physics-deficient loser. 42 km is an
AVERAGE. The equator is not a flat Tootsie Roll plateau. There are
ups and downs and the ups can be quite a lot more than 42 km.
Admit it, you want there to be no benefit. It's so obvious. I guess
it's your natural pessimism, Luddite stance, or Christianity that you
want tech to have no benefit from anything.
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and subhuman Nazi filth,
vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal
intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I
wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a
valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between the
equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the equatorial
diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% of the polar
diameter  i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching
Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where
they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly
less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another benefit,
the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets an additional
boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the same direction as
the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial diameter vs
the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / 26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of satellites that are
intended for geostationary orbit.
On 7/16/2025 12:17 PM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and
subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all
normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a
valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between
the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the
equatorial diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33%
of the polar diameter  i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching
Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where
they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly
less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another
benefit, the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets
an additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the
same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial
diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km /
26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of
satellites that are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar, right? >>>> The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the object, a
satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will produce
more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay though.ÂÂ
I'm a Nazi filth too.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2
miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which translates
to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the equator versus
at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for launches to
geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is required to adjust
the position of the satellite, because the launch angle is already a
lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between
polar radius/diameter/ circumference versus the same measure at the
equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to
the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
If you are unwilling to listen to reason,
You have yet to post any. You're the fuckwit unable to understand
reason.
To repeat: it is *not* the difference between polar radius/diameter/circumference versus equatorial radius/diameter/circumference. It's the fact of the linear velocity at
the equator being substantially higher than the linear velocity at any
other latitude, *and* the site in French Guiana being nearly on the
equator, so that little adjustment is needed to the path of the
satellite to get it to geosynchronous orbit.
You just don't know what the fuck you're bullshitting about.
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some news:1058nr6$rdd7$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas McCain,"
"Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim Crow," "Steve from
Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and subhuman Nazi filth,
vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal
intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I
wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a
valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between the
equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the equatorial
diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% of the polar
diameter  i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching
Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where
they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly
less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another benefit,
the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets an additional
boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the same direction as
the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial diameter vs
the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / 26 mi. And the
advantage is almost exclusively for launches of satellites that are
intended for geostationary orbit.
That's why you flunked accounting
Baxter wrote:
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York have centrifugal forceSomehow that makes you sound like an idiot.
to thank for the "bulge" at the middle and absence of flooding.
Earth spins a bit over 1,000 MPH at the equator. Excess arctic
melt has to go somewhere, so it accumulates where you'd expect fat
would.
The arctic melt goes downhill, into the Canadian lakes.
On 15 Jul 2025, "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some news:10577b7$hqrd$1@dont-email.me:
Baxter wrote:
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York have centrifugal forceSomehow that makes you sound like an idiot.
to thank for the "bulge" at the middle and absence of flooding.
Earth spins a bit over 1,000 MPH at the equator. Excess arctic
melt has to go somewhere, so it accumulates where you'd expect fat
would.
The arctic melt goes downhill, into the Canadian lakes.
and oceans. It doesn't all shift to the equator as one would expect
though.
What the system is, is imperfect.
Science keeps us abreast of current understanding of the natural
world. As investigations deepen, understanding changes. That you
hold science to be the last word demonstrates the high esteem you have
for it's works.
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas McCain,"
"Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim Crow," "Steve
from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and subhuman Nazi
filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all
normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator,
I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a
valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between
the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the
equatorial diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% of
the polar diameter  i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching
Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where
they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly
less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another benefit,
the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets an
additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the same
direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial diameter
vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / 26 mi. And
the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of satellites that
are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar, right?ÂÂ
The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the object, a
satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will produce more
force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay though. I'm a
Nazi filth too.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator being
a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The advantage come
from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2 miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape Canaveral. That's a difference
of almost 500 miles, which translates to quite a lot of additional
linear velocity at the equator versus at Cape Canaveral. But the other
big advantage for launches to geostationary orbit is that not as much
fuel is required to adjust the position of the satellite, because the
launch angle is already a lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't "get"
what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same measure at the equator.
The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to the Kourou,
French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
Governor Swill wrote:
What the system is, is imperfect.
Science keeps us abreast of current understanding of the natural
world. As investigations deepen, understanding changes. That you
hold science to be the last word demonstrates the high esteem you have
for it's works.
One way to get a Nobel is show a famous scientist is completely wrong. It is an incentive to keep things churning.
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 03:30:08 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
burch cassidy <bcassidy@ucla.edu> wrote<snip>
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York have centrifugal force
to thank for the "bulge" at the middle and absence of flooding. Earth
spins a bit over 1,000 MPH at the equator. Excess arctic melt has to
go somewhere, so it accumulates where you'd expect fat would.
Somehow that makes you sound like an idiot.
That's because the Earth is not 'oblong', it's a sphere with a slight
bulge at its beltline due to centrifugal force. But the truly stupid
part is that this bulge prevents flooding in the tropics.
Flooding is routine in the tropics. If the land bulges out due to centrifugal force, so does the water.
Scout wrote:
"burch cassidy" <bcassidy@ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:20250716.013201.4726d1cc@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
On 15 Jul 2025, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com>
posted some news:mdn6gtFa7f5U1@mid.individual.net:
Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kurgatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad...
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and >>>>>> lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and >>>>>>>> gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled >>>>>>>> and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>> message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>> in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>>>>> or 100%
certainty."
Ã, Ã, The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>>>>> means? Do you understand what absolute means?Ã, You are off >>>>>>>>>> topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because >>>>>>>> science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty." >>>>>>>> And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science >>>>>>>> never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually >>>>>>> flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical,
scooter? You fucking dope.
So you are saying that science is saying an absolute or 100%
centainty.
Where do you see him saying that? The Earth is not spherical.
spherical
adjective
spher·?i·?cal 'sfir-i-k?l 'sfer-
Synonyms of spherical
1: having the form of a sphere or of one of its segments
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spherical
spherical
Share
/'sfir?k?l/
/'sfir?k?l/
IPA guide
A ball is spherical; it's shaped like a sphere - a three-dimensional
version of the two-dimensional circle.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/spherical
So, yes, the Earth meets the very definition of spherical (ie
approximates a sphere).
But did I say it was spherical? No, I said it was a globe.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
globe
/glob/
noun
1.the earth.
"collecting goodies from all over the globe"
Similar:
world
earth
universe
planet
orb
2. a spherical or rounded object.
"orange trees clipped into giant globes"
So, yes, the Earth is a globe, and that globe is spherical,
Indeed if the Earth were the size of a billiard ball.. it's shape and
tolerances would put it within WPA dimensional specifications for
billiard balls
http://www.curiouser.co.uk/facts/smooth_earth.htm
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal intents
and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I
wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
On 7/16/2025 8:22 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is
frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly obese convicted child
molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 15 Jul 2025, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> >>>> posted some news:mdn6gtFa7f5U1@mid.individual.net:
Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kurgatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad...
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and
gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and >>>>>>> lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and >>>>>>>>> gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled >>>>>>>>> and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement.
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"That's because science has never said anything with absolute >>>>>>>>>>>>> or 100%
certainty."
Ã, Ã, The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what 100% >>>>>>>>>>> means? Do you understand what absolute means?Ã, You are off >>>>>>>>>>> topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong.
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because >>>>>>>>> science has never said anything with absolute or 100% certainty." >>>>>>>>> And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science >>>>>>>>> never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually >>>>>>>> flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical, >>>>>>> scooter? You fucking dope.
So you are saying that science is saying an absolute or 100%
centainty.
Where do you see him saying that? The Earth is not spherical.
spherical
adjective
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal
intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I
wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible.
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some news:1058sou$sgqv$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas McCain,"
"Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim Crow," "Steve
from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and subhuman Nazi
filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all
normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, >>>>>>> I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a
valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between
the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the
equatorial diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% of
the polar diameter  i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching
Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where
they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly
less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another benefit,
the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets an
additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the same
direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial diameter
vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / 26 mi. And
the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of satellites that
are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar, right?Â
The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the object, a
satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will produce more
force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay though. I'm a
Nazi filth too.
Rudy had to google it.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator being
a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The advantage come
from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2 miles, versus only
3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape Canaveral. That's a difference
of almost 500 miles, which translates to quite a lot of additional
linear velocity at the equator versus at Cape Canaveral. But the other
big advantage for launches to geostationary orbit is that not as much
fuel is required to adjust the position of the satellite, because the
launch angle is already a lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't "get"
what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between polar
radius/diameter/circumference versus the same measure at the equator.
The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to the Kourou,
French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
Because literate and knowledgeable people don't need dictionaries, scooter.
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his many glaring tells. What a
fucking idiot!
On 7/16/2025 9:08 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1058sou$sgqv$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and
subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all
normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a
valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between
the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the
equatorial diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33%
of the polar diameter  i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching
Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where
they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly
less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another
benefit, the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets
an additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the
same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial
diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km /
26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of
satellites that are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar,
right? The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the
object, a satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will
produce more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay
though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
Rudy had to google it.
No, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and draft dodger and
Social Security dole scrounger, I didn't.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2
miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which translates
to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the equator versus
at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for launches to
geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is required to adjust
the position of the satellite, because the launch angle is already a
lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between
polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same measure at the
equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to
the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and
draft dodger and Social Security dole scrounger. When you resort to
one, you're telling us your an uneducated illiterate Blowjob.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105b037$1d1r7$1@dont-email.me:
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his many glaring tells. What a
fucking idiot!
On 7/16/2025 9:08 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1058sou$sgqv$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and
subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all >>>>>>>>>> normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a >>>>>>>> valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between >>>>>>>> the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the
equatorial diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% >>>>>>>> of the polar diameter  i.e., it's negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching >>>>>>> Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where >>>>>>> they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly >>>>>>> less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another
benefit, the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets
an additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the
same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial
diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / >>>>>> 26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of
satellites that are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar,
right? The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the
object, a satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will
produce more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay
though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
Rudy had to google it.
No, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and draft dodger and
Social Security dole scrounger, I didn't.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2
miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which translates
to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the equator versus
at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for launches to
geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is required to adjust
the position of the satellite, because the launch angle is already a
lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between
polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same measure at the
equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to
the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and
draft dodger and Social Security dole scrounger. When you resort to
one, you're telling us your an uneducated illiterate Blowjob.
he's wrong about the 500 miles too.
===============
AI Overview
The equatorial radius of the Earth is approximately 21 kilometers (13
miles) greater than the polar radius. This difference is due to the
Earth's rotation, which causes a slight bulge at the equator and
flattening at the poles, resulting in the shape of an oblate spheroid. ==========
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 03:30:08 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
burch cassidy <bcassidy@ucla.edu> wrote<snip>
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York have centrifugal force
to thank for the "bulge" at the middle and absence of flooding. Earth >>>> spins a bit over 1,000 MPH at the equator. Excess arctic melt has to
go somewhere, so it accumulates where you'd expect fat would.
Somehow that makes you sound like an idiot.
That's because the Earth is not 'oblong', it's a sphere with a slight
bulge at its beltline due to centrifugal force. But the truly stupid
part is that this bulge prevents flooding in the tropics.
Flooding is routine in the tropics. If the land bulges out due to
centrifugal force, so does the water.
Climate science deniers don't understand that sea-level is not the same all over the earth, and not just because of the equatorial bulge.
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
On 7/17/2025 6:11 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kvoratt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:UIPdQ.1130379$9SBb.716705@fx18.iad...
On 7/16/2025 8:22 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is
frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly obese convicted child
molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 15 Jul 2025, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby"
<wichitajayhawks@msn.com>
posted some news:mdn6gtFa7f5U1@mid.individual.net:
Scout wrote:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <kurgatt@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XqcdQ.110199$1c77.67158@fx04.iad...
On 7/14/2025 10:21 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and >>>>>>>>> gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled >>>>>>>>> and
lied:
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klobatt@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:QradQ.152360$YCgd.130938@fx44.iad...
On 7/14/2025 5:50 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and >>>>>>>>>>> gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled >>>>>>>>>>> and lied:
"Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> message news:mddioaFm560U1@mid.individual.net...
Mitchell Holman wrote:
"Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in news:mdcfrvFgejgU3@mid.individual.net:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote this post while blinking in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Morse code:Here's what I said:
Governor Swill wrote:Your posting here via a computer network puts the LIE to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
"That's because science has never
proven anything."
Skeeter, Aug 15, 2923
https://tinyurl.com/3p3t8uj5
This is a fact. To be certain, I said it yesterday. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
statement.
"That's because science has never said anything with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absolute
or 100%
certainty."
Ã, Ã, The very fact you are posting on
this network is proof that science
works.
When did I say science doesn't work? Do you understand what >>>>>>>>>>>>> 100%
means? Do you understand what absolute means?Ã, You are off >>>>>>>>>>>>> topic, troll.
Do you understand what "never" means?
Because if you're going to say "never" you would be wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>
No, scooter, he's not wrong. The statement was, "That's because >>>>>>>>>>> science has never said anything with absolute or 100%
certainty."
And that's a true statement, scooter. In fact, scooter, science >>>>>>>>>>> never "proves" anything at all.
So you think there is some possibility that the Earth is actually >>>>>>>>>> flat despite the all the science that proves it's a globe?
What scientific theory predicted the earth is (mostly) spherical, >>>>>>>>> scooter? You fucking dope.
So you are saying that science is saying an absolute or 100%
centainty.
Where do you see him saying that? The Earth is not spherical.
spherical
adjective
[dictionary bullshit erased]
Because
Because literate and knowledgeable people don't need dictionaries,
scooter.
When you need to post a dictionary definition, scooter, you're *admitting*
to having a 7th-rate intellect.
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all normal
intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the equator, I
wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a valid
scientific quest to be as precise as possible.
Oh, well if we are to be precise as possible.. then you had better step
up your game because most of the time your precision is
superb. Yes, scooter, it is. Thanks for noticing!
To repeat: the so-called "bulge" has nothing to do with close proximity to the equator being advantageous to space launches.
Here's another helpful repetition: Saturn V rocket engines did not "regularly" blow up — *one* known instance on a test platform — and there were *no* catastrophic in-flight failures on any launch, and *no* failures
at all on any crewed mission. You're a fuck-up, scooter.
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the equator. The latitude
through the cape is not a great circle.
On 7/17/2025 8:16 AM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105b037$1d1r7$1@dont-email.me:
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his many glaring tells. What a
fucking idiot!
On 7/16/2025 9:08 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1058sou$sgqv$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and >>>>>>> subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all >>>>>>>>>>> normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in >>>>>>>>> a valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible.
However, according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the
difference between the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km >>>>>>>>> / 26 mi., the equatorial diameter being the larger. That
difference is 0.33% of the polar diameter  i.e., it's >>>>>>>>> negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket
Launching Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South
America where they launch rockets into outer space is
advantageous over Cape Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the
rockets require significantly less fuel due to the bulge at the >>>>>>>> equator and, as another benefit, the spin of the earth at the
equator gives the rockets an additional boost into orbit when
the rocket is aimed in the same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi
filth. There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the
equatorial diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is >>>>>>> only 40 km / 26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for
launches of satellites that are intended for geostationary
orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar,
right? The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the
object, a satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will
produce more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay
though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
Rudy had to google it.
No, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and draft dodger
and Social Security dole scrounger, I didn't.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2
miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which
translates to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the
equator versus at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for
launches to geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is
required to adjust the position of the satellite, because the
launch angle is already a lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference
between polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same
measure at the equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives
the advantage to the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape
Canaveral.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and
draft dodger and Social Security dole scrounger. When you resort to
one, you're telling us your an uneducated illiterate Blowjob.
he's wrong about the 500 miles too.
===============
AI Overview
The equatorial radius of the Earth is approximately 21 kilometers (13
miles) greater than the polar radius. This difference is due to the
Earth's rotation, which causes a slight bulge at the equator and
flattening at the poles, resulting in the shape of an oblate
spheroid. ==========
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
No, you stupid fucking moron. The radius that matters is the radius of
the circle spinning around the earth's axis, *not* the radius to the
center of the earth. The earth spins around its axis, not around the
center of the planet. The radius of the circle centered around the
axis is 500 miles greater than the radius of the circle at the
latitude of Cape Canaveral. If you're standing exactly on one of the
poles, you have *zero* linear velocity relative to the axis of the
earth, because the radius of your position on the pole to the axis is
exactly zero.
The eastward linear velocity of an object at Cape Canaveral is about
408.8 m/s, or 914.5 mph, while the linear velocity at the Kourou
launch site in French Guiana is about 463.3 m/s, or 1036.4 mph. That's
a difference of over 100mph faster at Kourou. It's that increase in
linear velocity that gives an advantage to launching from Kourou
rather than from Cape Canaveral.
Just keep your fucking mouth shut, Bugster, about things of which you
are entirely ignorant. That means you need to keep your fucking mouth
shut about nearly everything.
On 7/17/2025 9:08 AM, chine.bleu wrote:
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
This is where Bugster, the professional dope, shows his stupidity. The difference in radius between Cape Canaveral and the equator *to the
earth axis* is not zero.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the equator.
The latitude through the cape is not a great circle.
Bugster, a professional dope who for some inexplicable reason is
sitting on thousands of skeins of yarn, is too stupid to understand
that earth rotates around its axis, *not* around the center of the
earth. The linear velocity of an object at or near the equator is significantly higher than that of an object at a latitude farther from
the equator due to the greater length of the radius from the surface
to the axis at the equator. The formula for calculating linear
velocity at a point on a rotating circle is v = ω * r, where 'v' is
linear velocity, 'ω' is angular velocity in radians, and 'r' is the
radius of the circle. The angular velocity of earth's rotation is
*constant* for the entire planet — obviously, except to Bugster —
and it is equal to 7.2921159 × 10â»âµ.
The eastward linear velocity at Cape Canaveral is about 914 mph, while
linear velocity at Kourou is about 1,035 mph. It's that extra 100+ mph
that provides the main advantage in launching rockets at Kourou. If
the satellite is intended to achieve geostationary orbit, meaning geosynchronous orbit directly over the equator, then being closer to
the equator at launch means less maneuvering, and thus less fuel, to
achieve the desired orbit. That's a major additional benefit of
launching at Kouros.
But Bugster is a professional dope, so he'll never be able to
understand this.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bjmo$1hhbu$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 9:08 AM, chine.bleu wrote:
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
This is where Bugster, the professional dope, shows his stupidity. The
difference in radius between Cape Canaveral and the equator *to the
earth axis* is not zero.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the equator.
The latitude through the cape is not a great circle.
Bugster, a professional dope who for some inexplicable reason is
sitting on thousands of skeins of yarn, is too stupid to understand
that earth rotates around its axis, *not* around the center of the
earth. The linear velocity of an object at or near the equator is
significantly higher than that of an object at a latitude farther from
the equator due to the greater length of the radius from the surface
to the axis at the equator. The formula for calculating linear
velocity at a point on a rotating circle is v = ω * r, where 'v' is
linear velocity, 'ω' is angular velocity in radians, and 'r' is the
radius of the circle. The angular velocity of earth's rotation is
*constant* for the entire planet — obviously, except to Bugster —
and it is equal to 7.2921159 × 10â»âµ.
The eastward linear velocity at Cape Canaveral is about 914 mph, while
linear velocity at Kourou is about 1,035 mph. It's that extra 100+ mph
that provides the main advantage in launching rockets at Kourou. If
the satellite is intended to achieve geostationary orbit, meaning
geosynchronous orbit directly over the equator, then being closer to
the equator at launch means less maneuvering, and thus less fuel, to
achieve the desired orbit. That's a major additional benefit of
launching at Kouros.
But Bugster is a professional dope, so he'll never be able to
understand this.
This is on par with a spelling flame.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105b64a$1d1r7$4@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 8:16 AM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105b037$1d1r7$1@dont-email.me:
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his many glaring tells. What a
fucking idiot!
On 7/16/2025 9:08 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1058sou$sgqv$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and >>>>>>>> subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all >>>>>>>>>>>> normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in >>>>>>>>>> a valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible.
However, according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the
difference between the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km >>>>>>>>>> / 26 mi., the equatorial diameter being the larger. That
difference is 0.33% of the polar diameter  i.e., it's >>>>>>>>>> negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket
Launching Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South >>>>>>>>> America where they launch rockets into outer space is
advantageous over Cape Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the
rockets require significantly less fuel due to the bulge at the >>>>>>>>> equator and, as another benefit, the spin of the earth at the >>>>>>>>> equator gives the rockets an additional boost into orbit when >>>>>>>>> the rocket is aimed in the same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi
filth. There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the
equatorial diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is >>>>>>>> only 40 km / 26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for >>>>>>>> launches of satellites that are intended for geostationary
orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar,
right? The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the
object, a satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will >>>>>>> produce more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay >>>>>>> though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
Rudy had to google it.
No, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and draft dodger
and Social Security dole scrounger, I didn't.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2 >>>>>> miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which
translates to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the
equator versus at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for
launches to geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is
required to adjust the position of the satellite, because the
launch angle is already a lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference
between polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same
measure at the equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives
the advantage to the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape
Canaveral.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and
draft dodger and Social Security dole scrounger. When you resort to
one, you're telling us your an uneducated illiterate Blowjob.
he's wrong about the 500 miles too.
===============
AI Overview
The equatorial radius of the Earth is approximately 21 kilometers (13
miles) greater than the polar radius. This difference is due to the
Earth's rotation, which causes a slight bulge at the equator and
flattening at the poles, resulting in the shape of an oblate
spheroid. ==========
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
No, you stupid fucking moron. The radius that matters is the radius of
the circle spinning around the earth's axis, *not* the radius to the
center of the earth. The earth spins around its axis, not around the
center of the planet. The radius of the circle centered around the
axis is 500 miles greater than the radius of the circle at the
latitude of Cape Canaveral. If you're standing exactly on one of the
poles, you have *zero* linear velocity relative to the axis of the
earth, because the radius of your position on the pole to the axis is
exactly zero.
The eastward linear velocity of an object at Cape Canaveral is about
408.8 m/s, or 914.5 mph, while the linear velocity at the Kourou
launch site in French Guiana is about 463.3 m/s, or 1036.4 mph. That's
a difference of over 100mph faster at Kourou. It's that increase in
linear velocity that gives an advantage to launching from Kourou
rather than from Cape Canaveral.
Just keep your fucking mouth shut, Bugster, about things of which you
are entirely ignorant. That means you need to keep your fucking mouth
shut about nearly everything.
You're an idiot.
============
Earth's spin axis drifts slowly around the poles
The difference in velocity between Cape Canaveral and Kourou is due to Latitude - not to any wobble.
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the equator.
The latitude through the cape is not a great circle.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bvse$1k03u$3@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 2:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bjmo$1hhbu$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 9:08 AM, chine.bleu wrote:
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral
is 0 miles.
This is where Bugster, the professional dope, shows his stupidity.
The difference in radius between Cape Canaveral and the equator *to
the earth axis* is not zero.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the
equator. The latitude through the cape is not a great circle.
Bugster, a professional dope who for some inexplicable reason is
sitting on thousands of skeins of yarn, is too stupid to understand
that earth rotates around its axis, *not* around the center of the
earth. The linear velocity of an object at or near the equator is
significantly higher than that of an object at a latitude farther
from the equator due to the greater length of the radius from the
surface to the axis at the equator. The formula for calculating
linear velocity at a point on a rotating circle is v = ω * r,
where 'v' is linear velocity, 'ω' is angular velocity in radians,
and 'r' is the radius of the circle. The angular velocity of
earth's rotation is *constant* for the entire planet — obviously,
except to Bugster — and it is equal to 7.2921159 × 10â»âµ.
The eastward linear velocity at Cape Canaveral is about 914 mph,
while linear velocity at Kourou is about 1,035 mph. It's that extra
100+ mph that provides the main advantage in launching rockets at
Kourou. If the satellite is intended to achieve geostationary
orbit, meaning geosynchronous orbit directly over the equator, then
being closer to the equator at launch means less maneuvering, and
thus less fuel, to achieve the desired orbit. That's a major
additional benefit of launching at Kouros.
But Bugster is a professional dope, so he'll never be able to
understand this.
This is on par with a spelling flame.
No, Bugster, it's not even close. You reveal you don't know a fucking
thing about angular velocity being converted to linear velocity. You
insisted, stupidly, that launches were easier near the equator due to
the minuscule difference between the equatorial and polar radii. It's
not. You're a fucking idiot.
If you were talking about oblate spheroid/etc. If you meant Latitude
why didn't you use that word? And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming "launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule difference between the equatorial and polar radii". Again, right there, when you
say "equatorial and polar radii" are you talking about Latitude or
center of earth?
On 7/17/2025 2:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bjmo$1hhbu$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 9:08 AM, chine.bleu wrote:
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is
0 miles.
This is where Bugster, the professional dope, shows his stupidity.
The difference in radius between Cape Canaveral and the equator *to
the earth axis* is not zero.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the equator.
The latitude through the cape is not a great circle.
Bugster, a professional dope who for some inexplicable reason is
sitting on thousands of skeins of yarn, is too stupid to understand
that earth rotates around its axis, *not* around the center of the
earth. The linear velocity of an object at or near the equator is
significantly higher than that of an object at a latitude farther
from the equator due to the greater length of the radius from the
surface to the axis at the equator. The formula for calculating
linear velocity at a point on a rotating circle is v = ω * r, where
'v' is linear velocity, 'ω' is angular velocity in radians, and 'r'
is the radius of the circle. The angular velocity of earth's
rotation is *constant* for the entire planet — obviously, except
to Bugster — and it is equal to 7.2921159 × 10â»âµ.
The eastward linear velocity at Cape Canaveral is about 914 mph,
while linear velocity at Kourou is about 1,035 mph. It's that extra
100+ mph that provides the main advantage in launching rockets at
Kourou. If the satellite is intended to achieve geostationary orbit,
meaning geosynchronous orbit directly over the equator, then being
closer to the equator at launch means less maneuvering, and thus
less fuel, to achieve the desired orbit. That's a major additional
benefit of launching at Kouros.
But Bugster is a professional dope, so he'll never be able to
understand this.
This is on par with a spelling flame.
No, Bugster, it's not even close. You reveal you don't know a fucking
thing about angular velocity being converted to linear velocity. You insisted, stupidly, that launches were easier near the equator due to
the minuscule difference between the equatorial and polar radii. It's
not. You're a fucking idiot.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries,
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 03:30:08 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
burch cassidy <bcassidy@ucla.edu> wrote<snip>
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York have centrifugal
force to thank for the "bulge" at the middle and absence of
flooding. Earth spins a bit over 1,000 MPH at the equator.
Excess arctic melt has to go somewhere, so it accumulates where
you'd expect fat would.
Somehow that makes you sound like an idiot.
That's because the Earth is not 'oblong', it's a sphere with a
slight bulge at its beltline due to centrifugal force. But the
truly stupid part is that this bulge prevents flooding in the
tropics.
Flooding is routine in the tropics. If the land bulges out due to
centrifugal force, so does the water.
Climate science deniers don't understand that sea-level is not the
same all over the earth, and not just because of the equatorial
bulge.
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87189/seafloor-features-are-re >vealed-by-the-gravity-field>
Seafloor Features Are Revealed by the Gravity Field
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105b037$1d1r7$1@dont-email.me:
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his many glaring tells. What a
fucking idiot!
On 7/16/2025 9:08 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1058sou$sgqv$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and
subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching >>>>>>> Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where >>>>>>> they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all >>>>>>>>>> normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a >>>>>>>> valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However,
according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between >>>>>>>> the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the
equatorial diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% >>>>>>>> of the polar diameter  i.e., it's negligible. >>>>>>>
Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly >>>>>>> less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another
benefit, the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets
an additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the
same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth.
There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial
diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / >>>>>> 26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of
satellites that are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar,
right? The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the
object, a satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will
produce more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay
though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
Rudy had to google it.
No, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and draft dodger and
Social Security dole scrounger, I didn't.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2
miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which translates
to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the equator versus
at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for launches to
geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is required to adjust
the position of the satellite, because the launch angle is already a
lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between
polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same measure at the
equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to
the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and
draft dodger and Social Security dole scrounger. When you resort to
one, you're telling us your an uneducated illiterate Blowjob.
he's wrong about the 500 miles too.
===============
AI Overview
The equatorial radius of the Earth is approximately 21 kilometers (13
miles) greater than the polar radius. This difference is due to the
Earth's rotation, which causes a slight bulge at the equator and
flattening at the poles, resulting in the shape of an oblate spheroid.
==========
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
On 7/17/2025 8:16 AM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105b037$1d1r7$1@dont-email.me:
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his many glaring tells. What a
fucking idiot!
On 7/16/2025 9:08 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1058sou$sgqv$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and >>>>>>> subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all >>>>>>>>>>> normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in >>>>>>>>> a valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible.
However, according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the
difference between the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km >>>>>>>>> / 26 mi., the equatorial diameter being the larger. That
difference is 0.33% of the polar diameter  i.e., it's
negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket
Launching Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South
America where they launch rockets into outer space is
advantageous over Cape Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the
rockets require significantly less fuel due to the bulge at the >>>>>>>> equator and, as another benefit, the spin of the earth at the
equator gives the rockets an additional boost into orbit when
the rocket is aimed in the same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi
filth. There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the
equatorial diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is >>>>>>> only 40 km / 26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for
launches of satellites that are intended for geostationary
orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar,
right? The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the
object, a satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will
produce more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay
though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
Rudy had to google it.
No, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and draft dodger
and Social Security dole scrounger, I didn't.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2
miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which
translates to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the
equator versus at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for
launches to geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is
required to adjust the position of the satellite, because the
launch angle is already a lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference
between polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same
measure at the equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives
the advantage to the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape
Canaveral.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and
draft dodger and Social Security dole scrounger. When you resort to
one, you're telling us your an uneducated illiterate Blowjob.
he's wrong about the 500 miles too.
===============
AI Overview
The equatorial radius of the Earth is approximately 21 kilometers (13
miles) greater than the polar radius. This difference is due to the
Earth's rotation, which causes a slight bulge at the equator and
flattening at the poles, resulting in the shape of an oblate
spheroid. ==========
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
No, you stupid fucking moron. The radius that matters is the radius of
the circle spinning around the earth's axis, *not* the radius to the
center of the earth. The earth spins around its axis, not around the
center of the planet. The radius of the circle centered around the
axis is 500 miles greater than the radius of the circle at the
latitude of Cape Canaveral. If you're standing exactly on one of the
poles, you have *zero* linear velocity relative to the axis of the
earth, because the radius of your position on the pole to the axis is
exactly zero.
The eastward linear velocity of an object at Cape Canaveral is about
408.8 m/s, or 914.5 mph, while the linear velocity at the Kourou
launch site in French Guiana is about 463.3 m/s, or 1036.4 mph. That's
a difference of over 100mph faster at Kourou. It's that increase in
linear velocity that gives an advantage to launching from Kourou
rather than from Cape Canaveral.
Just keep your fucking mouth shut, Bugster, about things of which you
are entirely ignorant. That means you need to keep your fucking mouth
shut about nearly everything.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bjmo$1hhbu$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 9:08 AM, chine.bleu wrote:
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
This is where Bugster, the professional dope, shows his stupidity. The
difference in radius between Cape Canaveral and the equator *to the
earth axis* is not zero.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the equator.
The latitude through the cape is not a great circle.
Bugster, a professional dope who for some inexplicable reason is
sitting on thousands of skeins of yarn, is too stupid to understand
that earth rotates around its axis, *not* around the center of the
earth. The linear velocity of an object at or near the equator is
significantly higher than that of an object at a latitude farther from
the equator due to the greater length of the radius from the surface
to the axis at the equator. The formula for calculating linear
velocity at a point on a rotating circle is v = Ï? * r, where 'v' is
linear velocity, 'Ï?' is angular velocity in radians, and 'r' is the
radius of the circle. The angular velocity of earth's rotation is
*constant* for the entire planet â?" obviously, except to Bugster â?"
and it is equal to 7.2921159 Ã- 10â»âµ.
The eastward linear velocity at Cape Canaveral is about 914 mph, while
linear velocity at Kourou is about 1,035 mph. It's that extra 100+ mph
that provides the main advantage in launching rockets at Kourou. If
the satellite is intended to achieve geostationary orbit, meaning
geosynchronous orbit directly over the equator, then being closer to
the equator at launch means less maneuvering, and thus less fuel, to
achieve the desired orbit. That's a major additional benefit of
launching at Kouros.
But Bugster is a professional dope, so he'll never be able to
understand this.
This is on par with a spelling flame.
On 17 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> is too stupid to realize
his many glaring tells. What a fucking idiot!
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries,
Rudy gets smacked with another fact and runs away.
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in news:105cebo$1r98d$1@dont-email.me:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bvse$1k03u$3@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 2:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bjmo$1hhbu$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 9:08 AM, chine.bleu wrote:
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral
is 0 miles.
This is where Bugster, the professional dope, shows his stupidity.
The difference in radius between Cape Canaveral and the equator *to
the earth axis* is not zero.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the
equator. The latitude through the cape is not a great circle.
Bugster, a professional dope who for some inexplicable reason is
sitting on thousands of skeins of yarn, is too stupid to understand
that earth rotates around its axis, *not* around the center of the
earth. The linear velocity of an object at or near the equator is
significantly higher than that of an object at a latitude farther
from the equator due to the greater length of the radius from the
surface to the axis at the equator. The formula for calculating
linear velocity at a point on a rotating circle is v = Ï? * r,
where 'v' is linear velocity, 'Ï?' is angular velocity in radians,
and 'r' is the radius of the circle. The angular velocity of
earth's rotation is *constant* for the entire planet â?" obviously,
except to Bugster â?" and it is equal to 7.2921159 Ã- 10â»âµ.
The eastward linear velocity at Cape Canaveral is about 914 mph,
while linear velocity at Kourou is about 1,035 mph. It's that extra
100+ mph that provides the main advantage in launching rockets at
Kourou. If the satellite is intended to achieve geostationary
orbit, meaning geosynchronous orbit directly over the equator, then
being closer to the equator at launch means less maneuvering, and
thus less fuel, to achieve the desired orbit. That's a major
additional benefit of launching at Kouros.
But Bugster is a professional dope, so he'll never be able to
understand this.
This is on par with a spelling flame.
No, Bugster, it's not even close. You reveal you don't know a fucking
thing about angular velocity being converted to linear velocity. You
insisted, stupidly, that launches were easier near the equator due to
the minuscule difference between the equatorial and polar radii. It's
not. You're a fucking idiot.
If you were talking about oblate spheroid/etc. If you meant Latitude
why didn't you use that word? And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule difference
between the equatorial and polar radii". Again, right there, when you
say "equatorial and polar radii" are you talking about Latitude or
center of earth?
If you're saying "minuscule difference" in radii, then you're talking
about center of Earth, and I was entirely on point and you can take your flames and stick them up your ass.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105b64a$1d1r7$4@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 8:16 AM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105b037$1d1r7$1@dont-email.me:
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his many glaring tells. What a
fucking idiot!
On 7/16/2025 9:08 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1058sou$sgqv$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and >>>>>>>> subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all >>>>>>>>>>>> normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in >>>>>>>>>> a valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible.
However, according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the
difference between the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km >>>>>>>>>> / 26 mi., the equatorial diameter being the larger. That
difference is 0.33% of the polar diameter ââ,¬â? i.e., it's >>>>>>>>>> negligible.
I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket
Launching Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South >>>>>>>>> America where they launch rockets into outer space is
advantageous over Cape Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the
rockets require significantly less fuel due to the bulge at the >>>>>>>>> equator and, as another benefit, the spin of the earth at the >>>>>>>>> equator gives the rockets an additional boost into orbit when >>>>>>>>> the rocket is aimed in the same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi
filth. There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the
equatorial diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is >>>>>>>> only 40 km / 26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for >>>>>>>> launches of satellites that are intended for geostationary
orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help.Ã, You understand a crowbar,
right?Ã, The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the
object, a satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will >>>>>>> produce more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay >>>>>>> though.Ã, I'm a Nazi filth too.
Rudy had to google it.
No, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and draft dodger
and Social Security dole scrounger, I didn't.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2 >>>>>> miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922Ã,° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which
translates to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the
equator versus at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for
launches to geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is
required to adjust the position of the satellite, because the
launch angle is already a lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference
between polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same
measure at the equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives
the advantage to the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape
Canaveral.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and
draft dodger and Social Security dole scrounger. When you resort to
one, you're telling us your an uneducated illiterate Blowjob.
he's wrong about the 500 miles too.
===============
AI Overview
The equatorial radius of the Earth is approximately 21 kilometers (13
miles) greater than the polar radius. This difference is due to the
Earth's rotation, which causes a slight bulge at the equator and
flattening at the poles, resulting in the shape of an oblate
spheroid. ==========
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
No, you stupid fucking moron. The radius that matters is the radius of
the circle spinning around the earth's axis, *not* the radius to the
center of the earth. The earth spins around its axis, not around the
center of the planet. The radius of the circle centered around the
axis is 500 miles greater than the radius of the circle at the
latitude of Cape Canaveral. If you're standing exactly on one of the
poles, you have *zero* linear velocity relative to the axis of the
earth, because the radius of your position on the pole to the axis is
exactly zero.
The eastward linear velocity of an object at Cape Canaveral is about
408.8 m/s, or 914.5 mph, while the linear velocity at the Kourou
launch site in French Guiana is about 463.3 m/s, or 1036.4 mph. That's
a difference of over 100mph faster at Kourou. It's that increase in
linear velocity that gives an advantage to launching from Kourou
rather than from Cape Canaveral.
Just keep your fucking mouth shut, Bugster, about things of which you
are entirely ignorant. That means you need to keep your fucking mouth
shut about nearly everything.
You're an idiot.
============
Earth's spin axis drifts slowly around the poles; the farthest away it
has wobbled since observations began is 37 feet (12 meters). These
wobbles don't affect our daily life, but they must be taken into account
to get accurate results from GPS, Earth-observing satellites and observatories on the ground.
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-study-solves-two-mysteries-about- wobbling-earth/
===========
What part of "slowly" do you not understand
The difference in velocity between Cape Canaveral and Kourou is due to Latitude - not to any wobble.
On 17 Jul 2025, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> posted some news:105b44v$1dvqr$2@dont-email.me:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105b037$1d1r7$1@dont-email.me:
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his many glaring tells. What a
fucking idiot!
On 7/16/2025 9:08 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1058sou$sgqv$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and >>>>>>> subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket Launching >>>>>>>> Facility in French Guyana near the equator in South America where >>>>>>>> they launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape >>>>>>>> Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require significantly >>>>>>>> less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all >>>>>>>>>>> normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a >>>>>>>>> valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However, >>>>>>>>> according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between >>>>>>>>> the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the
equatorial diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% >>>>>>>>> of the polar diameter Ãf¢ââ?s‰â,¬Â i.e., it's negligible. >>>>>>>>
benefit, the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets >>>>>>>> an additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the >>>>>>>> same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth. >>>>>>> There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial
diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km / >>>>>>> 26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of
satellites that are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help.Ãfâ?sÃ, You understand a crowbar,
right?Ãfâ?s The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the
object, a satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will
produce more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay
though.Ãfâ?sÃ, I'm a Nazi filth too.
Rudy had to google it.
No, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and draft dodger and
Social Security dole scrounger, I didn't.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2
miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922Ãfâ?sÃ,° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which translates >>>>> to quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the equator versus
at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for launches to
geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is required to adjust
the position of the satellite, because the launch angle is already a >>>>> lot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between
polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same measure at the
equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to
the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and
draft dodger and Social Security dole scrounger. When you resort to
one, you're telling us your an uneducated illiterate Blowjob.
Rudy is an ignoramus
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bvse$1k03u$3@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 2:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bjmo$1hhbu$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 9:08 AM, chine.bleu wrote:
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is >>>>>> 0 miles.
This is where Bugster, the professional dope, shows his stupidity.
The difference in radius between Cape Canaveral and the equator *to
the earth axis* is not zero.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the equator.
The latitude through the cape is not a great circle.
Bugster, a professional dope who for some inexplicable reason is
sitting on thousands of skeins of yarn, is too stupid to understand
that earth rotates around its axis, *not* around the center of the
earth. The linear velocity of an object at or near the equator is
significantly higher than that of an object at a latitude farther
from the equator due to the greater length of the radius from the
surface to the axis at the equator. The formula for calculating
linear velocity at a point on a rotating circle is v = ω * r, where
'v' is linear velocity, 'ω' is angular velocity in radians, and 'r'
is the radius of the circle. The angular velocity of earth's
rotation is *constant* for the entire planet — obviously, except
to Bugster — and it is equal to 7.2921159 × 10â»âµ.
The eastward linear velocity at Cape Canaveral is about 914 mph,
while linear velocity at Kourou is about 1,035 mph. It's that extra
100+ mph that provides the main advantage in launching rockets at
Kourou. If the satellite is intended to achieve geostationary orbit,
meaning geosynchronous orbit directly over the equator, then being
closer to the equator at launch means less maneuvering, and thus
less fuel, to achieve the desired orbit. That's a major additional
benefit of launching at Kouros.
But Bugster is a professional dope, so he'll never be able to
understand this.
This is on par with a spelling flame.
No, Bugster, it's not even close. You reveal you don't know a fucking
thing about angular velocity being converted to linear velocity. You
insisted, stupidly, that launches were easier near the equator due to
the minuscule difference between the equatorial and polar radii. It's
not. You're a fucking idiot.
If you were talking about oblate spheroid/etc.
If you meant Latitude why didn't you use that word?
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Again, right there, when you
say "equatorial and polar radii" are you talking about Latitude or center
of earth?
On 17 Jul 2025, "chine.bleu" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> posted some news:105b6tu$1elum$1@dont-email.me:
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
Governor Swill wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 03:30:08 -0000 (UTC), Baxter wrote:
burch cassidy <bcassidy@ucla.edu> wrote<snip>
Climatists in Oregon, California and New York have centrifugal
force to thank for the "bulge" at the middle and absence of
flooding. Earth spins a bit over 1,000 MPH at the equator.
Excess arctic melt has to go somewhere, so it accumulates where
you'd expect fat would.
Somehow that makes you sound like an idiot.
That's because the Earth is not 'oblong', it's a sphere with a
slight bulge at its beltline due to centrifugal force. But the
truly stupid part is that this bulge prevents flooding in the
tropics.
Flooding is routine in the tropics. If the land bulges out due to
centrifugal force, so does the water.
Climate science deniers don't understand that sea-level is not the
same all over the earth, and not just because of the equatorial
bulge.
<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87189/seafloor-features-are-r
e vealed-by-the-gravity-field>
Seafloor Features Are Revealed by the Gravity Field
"Trump administration dismisses nearly 400 scientists working on congressionally mandated national climate report"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/national-climate-assessment-report-scienti sts-fired/
They'll have to go try selling their biased modeling to the private
sector now instead of bilking tax payers. Maybe the NYT will buy into
it.
On 17 Jul 2025, J Carlson wrote:
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries,
Rudy kicks the living shit out of scooter and me again.
On 7/17/2025 8:17 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bvse$1k03u$3@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 2:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bjmo$1hhbu$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 9:08 AM, chine.bleu wrote:
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral
is 0 miles.
This is where Bugster, the professional dope, shows his stupidity.
The difference in radius between Cape Canaveral and the equator
*to the earth axis* is not zero.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the
equator. The latitude through the cape is not a great circle.
Bugster, a professional dope who for some inexplicable reason is
sitting on thousands of skeins of yarn, is too stupid to
understand that earth rotates around its axis, *not* around the
center of the earth. The linear velocity of an object at or near
the equator is significantly higher than that of an object at a
latitude farther from the equator due to the greater length of the
radius from the surface to the axis at the equator. The formula
for calculating linear velocity at a point on a rotating circle is
v = ω * r, where 'v' is linear velocity, 'ω' is angular velocity
in radians, and 'r' is the radius of the circle. The angular
velocity of earth's rotation is *constant* for the entire planet
— obviously, except to Bugster — and it is equal to 7.2921159
× 10â»âµ.
The eastward linear velocity at Cape Canaveral is about 914 mph,
while linear velocity at Kourou is about 1,035 mph. It's that
extra 100+ mph that provides the main advantage in launching
rockets at Kourou. If the satellite is intended to achieve
geostationary orbit, meaning geosynchronous orbit directly over
the equator, then being closer to the equator at launch means less
maneuvering, and thus less fuel, to achieve the desired orbit.
That's a major additional benefit of launching at Kouros.
But Bugster is a professional dope, so he'll never be able to
understand this.
This is on par with a spelling flame.
No, Bugster, it's not even close. You reveal you don't know a
fucking thing about angular velocity being converted to linear
velocity. You insisted, stupidly, that launches were easier near the
equator due to the minuscule difference between the equatorial and
polar radii. It's not. You're a fucking idiot.
If you were talking about oblate spheroid/etc.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid old demented shitwipe, because that's what
the earth is.
If you meant Latitude why didn't you use that word?
I *did* use the word, Bugster, you stupid shitworm.
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule
difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
Again, right there, when you
say "equatorial and polar radii" are you talking about Latitude or
center of earth?
I made that crystal clear, Bugster, you stupid shitworm. But it
wouldn't make any difference to you, because you don't know the
difference between you 85-year-old flabby ass and your florid
dumb-fuck face.
On 17 Jul 2025, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> posted some news:105b44v$1dvqr$2@dont-email.me:Launching
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105b037$1d1r7$1@dont-email.me:
Blowjob is too stupid to realize his many glaring tells. What a
fucking idiot!
On 7/16/2025 9:08 PM, Chadlee "cuck" Blowjob, 350lb 5'1" morbidly
obese convicted child molester and lying fat fuck, lied:
On 16 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> posted some
news:1058sou$sgqv$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/16/2025 11:15 AM, Lane "Stonehowler" Waldby wrote:
J Carlson wrote:
On 7/16/2025 9:57 AM, "Doctor Fill," "Dark Brandon," "Lucas
McCain," "Hisler," "DFENS," "Jade Helm," "Duke Mantee," "Jim
Crow," "Steve from Colorado", a drunk fucking child molester and >>>>>>> subhuman Nazi filth, vomited:
On 7/16/2025 9:39 AM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
[dictionary bullshit erased]I recall reading somewhere that the French Space Rocket
So yes, the Earth is a globe, it is spherical, and for all >>>>>>>>>>> normal intents and purposes is a sphere.
I hate to be pedantic, but with a bulge like that @ the
equator, I wouldn't call it spherical, I would call it
eyeball-shaped.
Scientists call it an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere in a >>>>>>>>> valid scientific quest to be as precise as possible. However, >>>>>>>>> according to BBC Science Focus Magazine, the difference between >>>>>>>>> the equatorial and polar diameters is 42 km / 26 mi., the
equatorial diameter being the larger. That difference is 0.33% >>>>>>>>> of the polar diameter  i.e., it's negligible. >>>>>>>>
whereFacility in French Guyana near the equator in South America
significantlythey launch rockets into outer space is advantageous over Cape >>>>>>>> Canaveral or Khazakstan in that the rockets require
/less fuel due to the bulge at the equator and, as another
benefit, the spin of the earth at the equator gives the rockets >>>>>>>> an additional boost into orbit when the rocket is aimed in the >>>>>>>> same direction as the spin.
The extra velocity is the *only* reason, you subhuman Nazi filth. >>>>>>> There is no advantage due to the "bulge" of the equatorial
diameter vs the polar diameter, as that difference is only 40 km
translates26 mi. And the advantage is almost exclusively for launches of
satellites that are intended for geostationary orbit.
Actually, the bulge does help. You understand a crowbar,
right? The longer the crowbar the more force impelled to the
object, a satellite. This means that an elevated extra 42 km will
produce more force than a valley launch at the equator. It's okay
though. I'm a Nazi filth too.
Rudy had to google it.
No, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and draft dodger and
Social Security dole scrounger, I didn't.
Once again, it's not the "bulge" of the diameter of the equator
being a minuscule amount greater than the polar diameter. The
advantage come from the radius of the equator circle being 3,963.2
miles, versus only 3,496.9 at 28.3922° N latitude at Cape
Canaveral. That's a difference of almost 500 miles, which
ato quite a lot of additional linear velocity at the equator versus
at Cape Canaveral. But the other big advantage for launches to
geostationary orbit is that not as much fuel is required to adjust
the position of the satellite, because the launch angle is already
Canaveral'slot closer to geostationary orbit.
You and scooter and the other fuckwits just fundamentally don't
"get" what the bulge is. The bulge refers to the difference between
polar radius/diameter/circumference versus the same measure at the
equator. The additional 26 miles is not what gives the advantage to
the Kourou, French Guiana site over Cape Canaveral.
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries, Blowjob, you stupid fucking *fat* cocksucker and
draft dodger and Social Security dole scrounger. When you resort to
one, you're telling us your an uneducated illiterate Blowjob.
Rudy is an ignoramus
he's wrong about the 500 miles too.
===============
AI Overview
The equatorial radius of the Earth is approximately 21 kilometers (13
miles) greater than the polar radius. This difference is due to the
Earth's rotation, which causes a slight bulge at the equator and
flattening at the poles, resulting in the shape of an oblate spheroid. >>==========
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral is 0
miles.
Your AI says you're wrong.
==============
AI Overview
The Earth is not a perfect sphere; it bulges at the equator. Therefore,
the radius at the equator is greater than the radius at Cape
latitude. The difference in radius is approximately 22 kilometers.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105dnl3$2438l$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 8:17 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bvse$1k03u$3@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 2:51 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105bjmo$1hhbu$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/17/2025 9:08 AM, chine.bleu wrote:
Baxter wrote:
The difference in radius between the equator and Cape Canaveral >>>>>>>> is 0 miles.
This is where Bugster, the professional dope, shows his stupidity. >>>>>> The difference in radius between Cape Canaveral and the equator
*to the earth axis* is not zero.
The great circles through the cape are not parallel to the
equator. The latitude through the cape is not a great circle.
Bugster, a professional dope who for some inexplicable reason is
sitting on thousands of skeins of yarn, is too stupid to
understand that earth rotates around its axis, *not* around the
center of the earth. The linear velocity of an object at or near
the equator is significantly higher than that of an object at a
latitude farther from the equator due to the greater length of the >>>>>> radius from the surface to the axis at the equator. The formula
for calculating linear velocity at a point on a rotating circle is >>>>>> v = ω * r, where 'v' is linear velocity, 'ω' is angular velocity >>>>>> in radians, and 'r' is the radius of the circle. The angular
velocity of earth's rotation is *constant* for the entire planet
— obviously, except to Bugster — and it is equal to 7.2921159
× 10â»âµ.
The eastward linear velocity at Cape Canaveral is about 914 mph,
while linear velocity at Kourou is about 1,035 mph. It's that
extra 100+ mph that provides the main advantage in launching
rockets at Kourou. If the satellite is intended to achieve
geostationary orbit, meaning geosynchronous orbit directly over
the equator, then being closer to the equator at launch means less >>>>>> maneuvering, and thus less fuel, to achieve the desired orbit.
That's a major additional benefit of launching at Kouros.
But Bugster is a professional dope, so he'll never be able to
understand this.
This is on par with a spelling flame.
No, Bugster, it's not even close. You reveal you don't know a
fucking thing about angular velocity being converted to linear
velocity. You insisted, stupidly, that launches were easier near the
equator due to the minuscule difference between the equatorial and
polar radii. It's not. You're a fucking idiot.
If you were talking about oblate spheroid/etc.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid old demented shitwipe, because that's what
the earth is.
Which [snip whiny bullshit]
If you meant Latitude why didn't you use that word?
I *did* use the word, Bugster, you stupid shitworm.
Nope.
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule
difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Again, right there, when you
say "equatorial and polar radii" are you talking about Latitude or
center of earth?
I made that crystal clear, Bugster, you stupid shitworm. But it
wouldn't make any difference to you, because you don't know the
difference between you 85-year-old flabby ass and your florid
dumb-fuck face.
You just keep digging yourself deeper.
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule
difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid lying shitworm, you did.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105dqa1$2438l$10@dont-email.me:
Prove it!
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule
difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid lying shitworm, you did.
On 7/18/2025 1:23 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105dqa1$2438l$10@dont-email.me:
Prove it!
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule
difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid lying shitworm, you did.
Bugster concedes defeat.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in news:105ejtm$2asnt$1@dont-
email.me:
On 7/18/2025 1:23 PM, Baxter wrote:So you
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105dqa1$2438l$10@dont-email.me:
Prove it!
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule
difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid lying shitworm, you did.
Bugster concedes defeat.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105f16o$2h2hr$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/18/2025 4:44 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in news:105ejtm$2asnt$1@dont-
email.me:
On 7/18/2025 1:23 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105dqa1$2438l$10@dont-email.me:
Prove it!
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule
difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid lying shitworm, you did.
[crickits]
So you
Bugster concedes defeat.
You already conceded defeat, Bugster. There's no need to keep
repeating it.
Carlson knows he fucked up, so like every conservaturd bluster and
attack.
On 7/18/2025 4:44 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in news:105ejtm$2asnt$1@dont-
email.me:
On 7/18/2025 1:23 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105dqa1$2438l$10@dont-email.me:
Prove it!
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule
difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid lying shitworm, you did.
So you
Bugster concedes defeat.
You already conceded defeat, Bugster. There's no need to keep
repeating it.
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105f16o$2h2hr$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/18/2025 4:44 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in news:105ejtm$2asnt$1@dont-
email.me:
On 7/18/2025 1:23 PM, Baxter wrote:So you
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105dqa1$2438l$10@dont-email.me:
Prove it!
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule
difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid lying shitworm, you did.
Bugster concedes defeat.
You already conceded defeat, Bugster. There's no need to keep
repeating it.
Carlson knows
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in news:105gcm4$2ql7r$1@dont- email.me:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105f16o$2h2hr$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/18/2025 4:44 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in news:105ejtm$2asnt$1@dont-
email.me:
On 7/18/2025 1:23 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105dqa1$2438l$10@dont-email.me:
Prove it!
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule >>>>>>>>>> difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid lying shitworm, you did.
[crickits]
So you
Bugster concedes defeat.
You already conceded defeat, Bugster. There's no need to keep
repeating it.
Carlson knows I fucked up,
J Carlson is
On 7/19/2025 8:13 AM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105f16o$2h2hr$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/18/2025 4:44 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in news:105ejtm$2asnt$1@dont-
email.me:
On 7/18/2025 1:23 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105dqa1$2438l$10@dont-email.me:
Prove it!
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule >>>>>>>>>> difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid lying shitworm, you did.
So you
Bugster concedes defeat.
You already conceded defeat, Bugster. There's no need to keep
repeating it.
Carlson knows
I fucked up and then conceded defeat. *Everyone* knows it,
Bugster.
On 7/19/2025 8:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in
news:105gcm4$2ql7r$1@dont- email.me:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105f16o$2h2hr$1@dont-email.me:
On 7/18/2025 4:44 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105ejtm$2asnt$1@dont- email.me:
On 7/18/2025 1:23 PM, Baxter wrote:
J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:105dqa1$2438l$10@dont-email.me:
Prove it!
And, no IT WAS NOT ME that was claiming
"launches were easier near the equator due to the minuscule >>>>>>>>>>> difference between the equatorial and polar radii".
Yes, Bugster, you stupid shitworm, you did.
No it was not.
Yes, Bugster, you stupid lying shitworm, you did.
[crickets]
So you
Bugster concedes defeat.
You already conceded defeat, Bugster. There's no need to keep
repeating it.
Carlson knows he fucked up,
Everyone knows it, Bugster.
J Carlson is
a blowhard.
Scout bitch-slapped Rudy by typing:
That's right, scooter.
"Hartung's DD-214" <not-in-arizona@rudy.invalid> wrote in message >>news:20250718.074316.c4bf1c2f@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
On 17 Jul 2025, J Carlson <notgenx32@yahoo.com> is too stupid to realize >>> his many glaring tells. What a fucking idiot!
bulge
/b?lj/
noun
No dictionaries,
Rudy gets smacked with another fact and runs away.
Rudy hates when people prove he doesn't even understand the meaning of the >>words he uses.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 18:12:12 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,956 |