On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:27:02 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:10:10 -0800, I am Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

"I am Tosk" wrote in message
...

I bet the force of the up, unexpected and all in a tenth of a
second was
probably
more painful and possibly destructive as the drawn out force, and
bracing
on the way down...

Bingo.

Mathematically show me.

It's not a math question. Let me ask you a question. Which do you think
would cause more damage to your lower back. Falling straight down in a
sitting position onto a floor with your body straight up and feet
straight out, no arms or legs to break the fall, hitting with a straight
spine, or hitting from the same height, half sideways with your hands
and feet hitting first to break the fall. Remember, I am asking
specifically, which fall would do more damage to the lower back???

Either way, to prove this mathematically, you would need constants. In
this case you would expect the body and spine and breaking forces were
exactly in the same position, this is called a "standard" right.
Standards or whatever you call them are necessary for solid math, there
is not constant as to the position at launch and landing here. So, you
keep telling me you can show me the math, so, show me..

I can't believe you guys are still arguing this. Just think about the
'criminal' argument. The 'rightness' or 'wrongness' makes no
difference to Loogy.

When Loogy gets the balls to do the same thing, then I'll give his
bull**** some credit.

Arguing with him is like Bill's continous arguing with the plum. A
waste of time, unless you just have a desire to feel superior.


Until he started the word stupid, it was a discussion, not an argument.
There's a difference.

You're arguing with an old flaccid dick. Take that anyway that suits,
there's several options and they all apply.