Joined Oct 2006
25K Posts | 4K+
Your Mom's House
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 16 2008, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>
Continue diging Jumkie, this is hilarious.
Only the morons fail to see that this is the exact things that were compared and what bikergirl objected to in the start. That was an attempt to show how bad flapping electronics could be exemplified with flying rubber and stones from the tires of others vehicles. And as you said two very different scenarios.
When you want to make a fool out of others you might want to check what they actually argue against.
One thing I can always count on you, is you're very predictable--predictably wrong! I know that these are the two scenarios, but one of them was what actually happened (which is what I've been talking about, but that you missed). This is why I said; the morons bring up the "stationary" scenario. Yes I am aware she disputed in part, but then made the mistake of saying the forces were "negligible" and the "experience equivalent to having the thing flapping ...as if both elements are stationary" Notice the word that BikerGirl used here? She said its "EQUIVALENT" to having the thing flapping as if were both "SATIONARY". That what I disputed little buddy.
Both posts, I bring up something dangling in the wind from the bike traveling forward, and Rog & Bikerguru jump on here talking about a stationary scenario (read their posts again, or just go to mine, I highlighted the import parts of the quote). WTF. This is much different than what Rog & Bikergifted suggest about stationary objects being hit at speed, that is; if Casey would have been traveling then somebody standing on the side of the track dangled a little camera and it hit his hand, then we would be talking about that, but since that did NOT happen, then why even try to compare this scenario, only a moron would, and a moron wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two, like you. (Or at least somebody who cant read or understand elementary physics.)
Again, go back and read slowly and carefully, if the big words confuse you, then you Rog and Bikersweetheart (our resident physicist) can get an elementary dictionary.
What exactly did I say in my scenarios that you dispute???
Geez, is this that difficult to understand that event the seemingly very educated can get it so wrong? ...., we are all doomed. Rog, I get him, he’s just ....... around breaking my balls, and I’m doing the same, Bikergirl is pregnant, so enough said, but you Babel, all I can do is laugh and say, ....... we need a minimum IQ test on the forum. Lets add that to the wish list.
Continue diging Jumkie, this is hilarious.
Only the morons fail to see that this is the exact things that were compared and what bikergirl objected to in the start. That was an attempt to show how bad flapping electronics could be exemplified with flying rubber and stones from the tires of others vehicles. And as you said two very different scenarios.
When you want to make a fool out of others you might want to check what they actually argue against.
One thing I can always count on you, is you're very predictable--predictably wrong! I know that these are the two scenarios, but one of them was what actually happened (which is what I've been talking about, but that you missed). This is why I said; the morons bring up the "stationary" scenario. Yes I am aware she disputed in part, but then made the mistake of saying the forces were "negligible" and the "experience equivalent to having the thing flapping ...as if both elements are stationary" Notice the word that BikerGirl used here? She said its "EQUIVALENT" to having the thing flapping as if were both "SATIONARY". That what I disputed little buddy.
Both posts, I bring up something dangling in the wind from the bike traveling forward, and Rog & Bikerguru jump on here talking about a stationary scenario (read their posts again, or just go to mine, I highlighted the import parts of the quote). WTF. This is much different than what Rog & Bikergifted suggest about stationary objects being hit at speed, that is; if Casey would have been traveling then somebody standing on the side of the track dangled a little camera and it hit his hand, then we would be talking about that, but since that did NOT happen, then why even try to compare this scenario, only a moron would, and a moron wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two, like you. (Or at least somebody who cant read or understand elementary physics.)
Again, go back and read slowly and carefully, if the big words confuse you, then you Rog and Bikersweetheart (our resident physicist) can get an elementary dictionary.
What exactly did I say in my scenarios that you dispute???
Geez, is this that difficult to understand that event the seemingly very educated can get it so wrong? ...., we are all doomed. Rog, I get him, he’s just ....... around breaking my balls, and I’m doing the same, Bikergirl is pregnant, so enough said, but you Babel, all I can do is laugh and say, ....... we need a minimum IQ test on the forum. Lets add that to the wish list.
