|
genie, you have again failed to understand even the most elemental issues. the
discussion is not and has not ever been about the forces exerted on an anchor system by steady winds with no waves. go stand in the corner. "Gene Kearns" Date: 9/27/2004 8:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: On 27 Sep 2004 11:50:36 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote: ....and often on too short of scope and then "drag anchor" across the anchorage hitting boats.... Finally, the truth comes out.... this is about scope, not chain..... -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC. http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/cavern/ Homepage http://www.southharbourvillageinn.com/directions.asp Where Southport,NC is located. http://www.southharbourvillageinn.linksysnet.com Real Time Pictures at My Marina http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide |
Storm loads are extreme.
no ****. and several orders of magnitude greater when on all chain. |
625 WHEN?
Prior to 1985 or so, a 625 was pretty goddamn good. bullsquat. 625 on math was always poor at best. such students were advised to go into poly sci or art history. |
I took the SATs in, oh,
1961, I'd say haory, you can't remember when you were a junior in high school? and hoary? given such a poor score in math when you were a junior, why didn't you retake the test when you were a senior? |
He got a
b.s. in physics, then got a master's in physics, okay. then a doctorate in biology, how did he do that, hoary without getting enough credits in bio to also get a bs and ms in bio as well? and then, of all things, a law degree. such people usually become patent attorneys. |
base kisser, it has been explained again and again and again and agian and
again and agin.............................................. ........................ .................................................. ......................... .................................................. ......................... .................................................. ......................... .................................................. ......................... ....................................... and again. If you're anchoring in a bad storm and don't have enough scope, your anchor will break out no matter what you use for rode. nope. 10 to 1 on chain breaks the anchor loose, while 6 to 1 on nylon doesn't. sorry, dood, dem's da physics. which, of course, you don't understand anything except you wanna kill and/or injure someone. you wanna go to jail, dood. have fun with the 300# drug dealer, dood. you are going to be there a couple years. Well, "dood", why don't you explain "da physics" to us? Let's just see what you know about vector mechanics, "dood". |
Harry's perfect score is one of his stories that is right up there with his
Doctor Doctor wife and his 36' Lobster Boat. "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... hoary, with your genius IQ and perfect score on verbals, you certainly do lack any normal understanding of the English language. Harry Krause Date: 9/27/2004 8:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: JAXAshby wrote: genie, you are -- as usual -- confused. I have never stated that anchors are supposed to drag. a dragging anchor means the sailor has made an error. all chain sailors make this error on purpose because they are too lazy to anchor properly and wish to use an electric windlass (which is easier to use with all chain). Really? I have an "electric" windlass, and a mostly rope, partially chain rode...and you know what? It is perfectly easy to use. When I want to raise the anchor, I simply engage the engine, move towards the rode, and the windlass winds it up as we go. Usually the anchor comes up easily. If it is hard stuck, I reverse, let out line, attach an anchor ball, and use it to raise the anchor. This would be easier with chain? If I were using all chain, I'd need an anchor ball big as the pustule on your shoulders... You're full of ****, JaxAss. There are so many variables in anchoring that for you to claim that those who use all chain are lazy just shows what a dumb**** you really are. We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
genie, you anchor that way you will most certainly drag anchor on all chain.
*you* do that and hurt someone ***I*** will personally make absolute certain you are charged with criminal activity. bet on it, just as you can bet on being charged for driving drunk and injurying someone. do you also drive a boat drunk, genie? and you justify it how? "Gene Kearns" Date: 9/27/2004 10:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: On 27 Sep 2004 11:50:36 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote: the people I have had a problem with are those frickin lazy *******s who use all chain (because it runs through an electric windlass easier) and often on too short of scope and then "drag anchor" across the anchorage hitting boats all while claiming it is "an act of god" and not their fault at all. I was nearly hit by two such lazy *******s in twenty minutes, one of which went on to take out a 52 foot boat behind me. Here is what an anchor manufacturer says.... of course, what do they know when faced with the superior intellect of Jaxian omniscience.... In rough weather, minimum recommended scope is 4 for an all-chain rode, 7 for a combination chain/rope rode, and 10 for an all rope rode. It is recommended that zinc coated Grade 30 or zinc coated Proof Coil chain be used with load rated high quality zinc coated shackles to US Federal specification RR-C-271d Type IV or equivalent. These shackles exceed the strength of the chain while having pin diameters small enough to pass through the extremity links of the chain. Where a larger lower quality shackle of similar strength is used as a substitute, a riveted joining link one size larger than the chain is recommended for connection of the shackle to the chain. =====References====== http://www.bruceanchor.co.uk/cast.htm http://www.andrews.com/kysc/bt/anchorin.htm -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Southport, NC. http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/cavern/ Homepage http://www.southharbourvillageinn.com/directions.asp Where Southport,NC is located. http://www.southharbourvillageinn.linksysnet.com Real Time Pictures at My Marina http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide |
In article , JAXAshby wrote: karl, knock it off. next time READ the frickin thread before you respond. the thread was about shock loads and some frickin idgit's claim that anchor are SUPPOSED to drag because otherwise the shock loads (on an all chain rode) would break the deck chocks off. Jaxass, YOU knock it off. There's nothing wrong with all-chain rode. You need to pay attention to this thing called caternary. It provides the snubbing on an all-chain rode, and if the scope is sufficiently long the load comes on slowly, just as it does on a rode made out of line. If you actually paid attention to the physics of the matter you would realize that as the "bow" comes out of the chain the load increases - logrythmically. Exactly as it does when you stretch nylon line. The difference is that chain is HEAVY and the effort required to "straighten the bow" in it is very significant. This effort is applied gradually - the load does not appear in a "snap". In either case if you exceed the snubbing capability you take the full load against the entire anchor system, and I guarantee you that it is quite possible to tear out deck hardware with all-nylon rodes. The 3/4" line that I use for "severe service" (both dock lines and anchoring) has a breaking test of somewhere around 11,000 lbs. That is approximately 1/4 of the displacement of my vessel; I have no reasonable belief that I could suspend my vessel by the four corners on the bow and stern cleats by that line without some piece of the deck or hardware failing. Note as well that in tests of combination chain/rope rodes it is common to find post-separation that when the nylon rode parts the chain has been permanently deformed and welds have begun to come apart, indicating that the chain was very near the failure point as well. Most storm anchoring failures that are actually your own fault are either due to insufficient scope or chafe. But the huge majority of failures in a storm are caused by something - either another boat or some LARGE piece of debris - fouling your mooring and causing the pull on your anchor to no longer be along the seabed floor. Once that happens you're screwed, no matter what kind of anchor and rode you have. I have a piling next to my air conditioning condensor at the house that took a direct hit from a neighbor's dock section during Ivan. It is bent over at a 45 degree angle. It did its job of protecting my condensor, but if that section had come loose and hit your anchor rode while your boat was anchored out it would have either cut if (if nylon) or pulled you loose (irrespective of WHAT it is) and you'd be screwed. During Ivan I was at a dock with a passel of lines spider-webbing my boat in place. Post-storm when I returned to the (safely tied up and undamaged) vessel my chafe gear on the lines that took the predominant load from the east winds was severely damaged. For chafe gear I use cut-up fire hose - arguably the toughest stuff around for that purpose. Without it the lines on that side of the boat would have almost certainly failed; the damage to the chafing gear was quite an impressive testament to the loads taken during the storm. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
JAXAshby wrote:
He got a b.s. in physics, then got a master's in physics, okay. then a doctorate in biology, how did he do that, hoary without getting enough credits in bio to also get a bs and ms in bio as well? Dunno. I wasn't his roomie or his faculty advisor, nor did we attend the same undergrad or grad schools. He did it, though. and then, of all things, a law degree. such people usually become patent attorneys. That is his field, sort of...he handles patents and other intellectual property matters for genetic research. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
JAXAshby wrote:
I took the SATs in, oh, 1961, I'd say haory, you can't remember when you were a junior in high school? Sure. I even remember who I took to my junior prom. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
JAXAshby wrote:
625 WHEN? Prior to 1985 or so, a 625 was pretty goddamn good. bullsquat. 625 on math was always poor at best. such students were advised to go into poly sci or art history. What a giggle. Way back when I took the SATs, 625 in math was in the 95th percentile, or so. Give or take a point. What are your degrees in, Jaxass, and what is it you did for a living before you were sent away on morals charges? -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
In article , JAXAshby wrote: 625 WHEN? Prior to 1985 or so, a 625 was pretty goddamn good. bullsquat. 625 on math was always poor at best. such students were advised to go into poly sci or art history. You are completely full of ****. Before roughly 1985 when the test was re-normed a 600 score on either part of the test was in the top 3 percent of all 18 year olds in verbal, and the top 5-6% in math. That ain't "poor" by any standard. A 650 was in the top 1% verbal, and the top 2% in math. If you scored at or above 650 you probably would qualify for Mensa. Among college-bound, a 650 in was in the top 4% in verbal, and top 8% in math ability. 600 Verbals correlated with a roughly 130 IQ, as did a 650 in Math. This all in the pre-renormed SAT world. Post 1985ish when the test was re-normed those numbers became MUCH less impressive. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
Subject: Anchors are SUPPOSED to drag?
From: (JAXAshby) From what I was told, after he introduced himself the first time they met he said, "I bet you think I'm an asshole." how does it feel to be found a fool, billie? Never in my life have I used any words such as that. Really? That's funny cause you used a couple of those word in this very post. among other things, I don't care what you think, so would never give a microsecond's thought to what you think. I know this is very, very hard for you to do in your mental state, but try to read for content. I never said you were speaking to me. Capt. Bill |
karl, knock it off. there ain't not a single thing "logrythmically" (sic)
about a catenary. look the frickin word up before you use it. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD frickin understand what it means. dum cluck, you are karl. as in dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddduuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmm. now, knock it off before you kill someone and go to jail. this has been explained to *you* in simple enough terms to make *you* a "reasonable man" under the terms of the law of the land. injure someone and *****I***** will make absolutely certain you are charged with a felony. As you deserve to be. just like driving a car drunk. (Karl dum squat Denninger) Date: 9/27/2004 10:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: et In article , JAXAshby wrote: karl, knock it off. next time READ the frickin thread before you respond. the thread was about shock loads and some frickin idgit's claim that anchor are SUPPOSED to drag because otherwise the shock loads (on an all chain rode) would break the deck chocks off. Jaxass, YOU knock it off. There's nothing wrong with all-chain rode. You need to pay attention to this thing called caternary. It provides the snubbing on an all-chain rode, and if the scope is sufficiently long the load comes on slowly, just as it does on a rode made out of line. If you actually paid attention to the physics of the matter you would realize that as the "bow" comes out of the chain the load increases - logrythmically. Exactly as it does when you stretch nylon line. The difference is that chain is HEAVY and the effort required to "straighten the bow" in it is very significant. This effort is applied gradually - the load does not appear in a "snap". In either case if you exceed the snubbing capability you take the full load against the entire anchor system, and I guarantee you that it is quite possible to tear out deck hardware with all-nylon rodes. The 3/4" line that I use for "severe service" (both dock lines and anchoring) has a breaking test of somewhere around 11,000 lbs. That is approximately 1/4 of the displacement of my vessel; I have no reasonable belief that I could suspend my vessel by the four corners on the bow and stern cleats by that line without some piece of the deck or hardware failing. Note as well that in tests of combination chain/rope rodes it is common to find post-separation that when the nylon rode parts the chain has been permanently deformed and welds have begun to come apart, indicating that the chain was very near the failure point as well. Most storm anchoring failures that are actually your own fault are either due to insufficient scope or chafe. But the huge majority of failures in a storm are caused by something - either another boat or some LARGE piece of debris - fouling your mooring and causing the pull on your anchor to no longer be along the seabed floor. Once that happens you're screwed, no matter what kind of anchor and rode you have. I have a piling next to my air conditioning condensor at the house that took a direct hit from a neighbor's dock section during Ivan. It is bent over at a 45 degree angle. It did its job of protecting my condensor, but if that section had come loose and hit your anchor rode while your boat was anchored out it would have either cut if (if nylon) or pulled you loose (irrespective of WHAT it is) and you'd be screwed. During Ivan I was at a dock with a passel of lines spider-webbing my boat in place. Post-storm when I returned to the (safely tied up and undamaged) vessel my chafe gear on the lines that took the predominant load from the east winds was severely damaged. For chafe gear I use cut-up fire hose - arguably the toughest stuff around for that purpose. Without it the lines on that side of the boat would have almost certainly failed; the damage to the chafing gear was quite an impressive testament to the loads taken during the storm. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
hoary explains his absolute understanding of what he wrote thusly:
Dunno. I wasn't ... |
"sorta" eh? boy, hoary, you are are one informed sumbitch about what you post
about. such people usually become patent attorneys. That is his field, sort of |
let us guess. three of the five Svenssen sisters?
haory, you can't remember when you were a junior in high school? Sure. I even remember who I took to my junior prom. |
haory, you can't remember when you were a junior in high school?
Sure. I even remember ... okay. was it "sorta" 1961 or "sorta" a year or two or three or five earlier or later? |
JAXAshby wrote:
karl, knock it off. there ain't not a single thing "logrythmically" (sic) about a catenary. look the frickin word up before you use it. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN NNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD frickin understand what it means. dum cluck, you are karl. as in Sheesh. I'm no fan of Karl's. I have no respect for most of his political positions, and I think some of his beliefes in life are beyond the bizarre, but... Karl is one smart fella, one of the brightest who posts here. You are no better than average, and you've got a really ****ty attitude about it. I haven't done any competitive sailing in many years, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if the two of us were racing each other in a Lighting, a Star, or even a Blue Jay, or in fact, almost any sailing dinghy, I'd be back at the clubhouse, drying sails on the lawn before you made the turn around the last buoy. There's not the slightest evidence from any of your posts that you sail anything...except, perhaps, your mouth. I sailed Blue Jays, Stars and Lightnings for many years in club races in LI Sound, abd then graduated to an L16, all before I was 20. If I recall your description of the sailboat you claim to own, it is somewhat of a low perf tub. You seem to get almost everything wrong, and you like to split hairs. That does not make you a sailor. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
"Karl Denninger" wrote in message nk.net... In article , JAXAshby wrote: 625 WHEN? Prior to 1985 or so, a 625 was pretty goddamn good. bullsquat. 625 on math was always poor at best. such students were advised to go into poly sci or art history. You are completely full of ****. Before roughly 1985 when the test was re-normed a 600 score on either part of the test was in the top 3 percent of all 18 year olds in verbal, and the top 5-6% in math. That ain't "poor" by any standard. A 650 was in the top 1% verbal, and the top 2% in math. If you scored at or above 650 you probably would qualify for Mensa. Among college-bound, a 650 in was in the top 4% in verbal, and top 8% in math ability. 600 Verbals correlated with a roughly 130 IQ, as did a 650 in Math. This all in the pre-renormed SAT world. Post 1985ish when the test was re-normed those numbers became MUCH less impressive. Yup.......I recall that 1200 was the bench mark. (late 70's)....getting that or higher was pretty much a guaranteed acceptance at any school in the country I believe at that time......you got 400 for showing up for the test. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
Way back when I took the SATs, 625 in math was in the
95th percentile, or so. Give or take a point. give or take about 100 points. a 625 in math wouldn't get you into a community college, hoary. 725 in math *might* make you a calc teacher in high school. but 95% tile? not a chance. |
karl, *if* that is true, I scored in the top 2% of "all 18 year old" in verbal
and the top 99.99999% in math. *I* don't believe that is true. Why do *you* state it is true? btw, I joined Mensa in 1968, because I hoped to meet a belly dancer named "Morocco". I met her in 1987, and within 60 seconds wished I hadn't. 625 WHEN? Prior to 1985 or so, a 625 was pretty goddamn good. bullsquat. 625 on math was always poor at best. such students were advised to go into poly sci or art history. You are completely full of ****. Before roughly 1985 when the test was re-normed a 600 score on either part of the test was in the top 3 percent of all 18 year olds in verbal, and the top 5-6% in math. That ain't "poor" by any standard. A 650 was in the top 1% verbal, and the top 2% in math. If you scored at or above 650 you probably would qualify for Mensa. Among college-bound, a 650 in was in the top 4% in verbal, and top 8% in math ability. 600 Verbals correlated with a roughly 130 IQ, as did a 650 in Math. This all in the pre-renormed SAT world. Post 1985ish when the test was re-normed those numbers became MUCH less impressive. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
JAXAshby wrote:
haory, you can't remember when you were a junior in high school? Sure. I even remember ... okay. was it "sorta" 1961 or "sorta" a year or two or three or five earlier or later? It was 1961, the year after both Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy appeared on the New Haven Green during the 1960 Presidential campaign. Got to see both in person (from a distance, of course)...my high school wasn't that far away from the Green. Here's some history of the Green. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
Yup.......I recall that 1200 was the bench mark. (late 70's)....getting
that or higher was pretty much a guaranteed acceptance at any school in the country nah. 1200 would get you into most state sponsered 4 year schools, where -- if you were lucky -- you would graduate with a liberal arts degree in poly sci. |
JAXAshby wrote:
karl, *if* that is true, I scored in the top 2% of "all 18 year old" in verbal and the top 99.99999% in math. *I* don't believe that is true. Why do *you* state it is true? btw, I joined Mensa in 1968, because I hoped to meet a belly dancer named "Morocco". I met her in 1987, and within 60 seconds wished I hadn't. Still have the clap, eh? -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
I believe at that time......you got 400 for showing up for the test.
that is a fact. you got 200 points *each* for verbal and math just for showing up. equilent IQ of 75. |
billie, you have been over-served. go sleep it off.
From what I was told, after he introduced himself the first time they met he said, "I bet you think I'm an asshole." how does it feel to be found a fool, billie? Never in my life have I used any words such as that. Really? That's funny cause you used a couple of those word in this very post. among other things, I don't care what you think, so would never give a microsecond's thought to what you think. I know this is very, very hard for you to do in your mental state, but try to read for content. I never said you were speaking to me. Capt. Bill |
In article , JAXAshby wrote: karl, *if* that is true, I scored in the top 2% of "all 18 year old" in verbal and the top 99.99999% in math. *I* don't believe that is true. Why do *you* state it is true? Because it is. Go look it up. Statistics for those years are available. I don't care what you BELIEVE. I quote what I KNOW. BTW, while you got 400 points for showing up for the test, it was entirely possible to lose those points by guessing at answers. -- -- Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind |
abd then graduated to an L16, all before I was 20.
hoary, when I was 20 I was a professional killer. you, at 20, were still trying to figure out why girls panties were smooth on the crotch. |
btw, I joined Mensa in 1968, because I hoped to meet a belly dancer named
"Morocco". I met her in 1987, and within 60 seconds wished I hadn't. Still have the clap, eh? hoary, I never gave her the chance to show me she might have the clap. Rocky was perhaps the most miserable fricking bitch I have ever had the misforture to have contact with in my life. you want her, hoary, she is yours. |
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ... Yup.......I recall that 1200 was the bench mark. (late 70's)....getting that or higher was pretty much a guaranteed acceptance at any school in the country nah. 1200 would get you into most state sponsered 4 year schools, where -- if you were lucky -- you would graduate with a liberal arts degree in poly sci. YAWN, you just can't get anything right can you? Unless you consider every ivy league school state sponsored.................snicker |
haory, this may come as a bit of a surprise to you *but* the 1960 presidental
election was held in ----------------- 1960 ---------------------. okay. was it "sorta" 1961 or "sorta" a year or two or three or five earlier or later? It was 1961, the year after both Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy appeared on the New Haven Green during the 1960 Presidential campaign. Got to see both in person (from a distance, of course)...my high school wasn't that far away from the Green. Here's some history of the Green. -- We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah. What, me worry? |
|
Yup...
"JAXAshby" wrote in message ... right. every ivy school "Putz" Date: 9/27/2004 11:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... Yup.......I recall that 1200 was the bench mark. (late 70's)....getting that or higher was pretty much a guaranteed acceptance at any school in the country nah. 1200 would get you into most state sponsered 4 year schools, where -- if you were lucky -- you would graduate with a liberal arts degree in poly sci. YAWN, you just can't get anything right can you? Unless you consider every ivy league school state sponsored.................snicker |
dream on, girlie-boy. or boily-girl. or whatever.
"Putz" Date: 9/27/2004 11:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: Yup... "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... right. every ivy school "Putz" Date: 9/27/2004 11:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... Yup.......I recall that 1200 was the bench mark. (late 70's)....getting that or higher was pretty much a guaranteed acceptance at any school in the country nah. 1200 would get you into most state sponsered 4 year schools, where -- if you were lucky -- you would graduate with a liberal arts degree in poly sci. YAWN, you just can't get anything right can you? Unless you consider every ivy league school state sponsored.................snicker |
karl, are *you* telling me and the entire world that I scored 99.99999% in
math? I don't believe it, so why do you? karl, *if* that is true, I scored in the top 2% of "all 18 year old" in verbal and the top 99.99999% in math. *I* don't believe that is true. Why do *you* state it is true? Because it is. |
BTW, while you got 400 points for showing up for the test, it was entirely
possible to lose those points by guessing at answers. -- -- Karl Denninger karl, I have never of anyone -- not even hoary -- who scored less than 200 on *either* the verbal *or* math, let alone less than 200 on EACH. wanna tell us about it, karl? |
Adolescent name calling, such an intellectual rebuttal...........
BTW no need to dream...... "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... dream on, girlie-boy. or boily-girl. or whatever. "Putz" Date: 9/27/2004 11:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: Yup... "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... right. every ivy school "Putz" Date: 9/27/2004 11:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time Message-id: "JAXAshby" wrote in message ... Yup.......I recall that 1200 was the bench mark. (late 70's)....getting that or higher was pretty much a guaranteed acceptance at any school in the country nah. 1200 would get you into most state sponsered 4 year schools, where -- if you were lucky -- you would graduate with a liberal arts degree in poly sci. YAWN, you just can't get anything right can you? Unless you consider every ivy league school state sponsored.................snicker |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com