(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 14 Jul 2004 02:11:21 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

mark, you defended well a poster whose handle is "steve". Unfortunately, you
assumed "steve" is rational. if you knew "steve" a bit more from his wild
claims of knowledge, you would snicker at him like the seventh grade kids do.

You wanna talk about wild claims of knowledge laughed at by seventh
grade kids, here are some of jox's claims:

By definition, the Earth's surface is planar.

An ICBM has no navigation system.

There's no outside reference when using DR to navigate.

It costs $15,000/year to make 10gals of water/day with a shipboard
watermaker.

You must use an isp to read a usenet newsgroup.

The human head can take about a 7 G blow before death becomes certain.

A rhumb line is a straight line on any chart, Mercator chart (sic) or
otherwise.

A rhumb is distance between two points one compass point apart.

Alternators are (for all practical purposes) capable of only producing
one voltage, no matter the rpm.

If you can see outside reference points, then you KNOW where you are...

There is no such thing as a north seeking gyro.

Yes Jox, you are a riot.

Steve

Wow, I should have paid more attention to Jax's ramblings, they ARE
quite humorous! Now, in context, did he REALLY say that the earth's
surface was planar? The rest I can put off to just not knowing, but
that one is just foolish!

no, base kisser, the statement was made that across the distance from NYC to
Phildelphia the surface of the Earth is less than a meter or so from planer and
therefore there is no need to calculate curvature to know the distance to sail
a boat. "steve" didn't understand that .

"steve" also doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ballistic", which has
too many sylables. nor does he understand what deduced reckoning is, but
thinks it means watching for lighthouses and nav marks.

no does "steve" have any rational clew what cost accounting is (nevermind it
has been a thoroughly understood business principal for more than forty years),
nor does he have anyremote clew that differences (there are many, many, many)
between a generator and an alternator.

no does he have an rational clew how a gyroscope works.

"steve" has not shown himself to be rational.

On 15 Jul 2004 13:02:02 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

no, base kisser, the statement was made that across the distance from NYC to
Phildelphia the surface of the Earth is less than a meter or so from planer and
therefore there is no need to calculate curvature to know the distance to sail
a boat. "steve" didn't understand that .

As usual, Jox is wrong. The statement was made in the discussion about
3d vectors, where Jox made the general statement:

btw, if vectors are "3 dimensional", just how can they be used at a
point on the Earth's surface (which by definition is planer).

Anyway you look at it, it's a stupid statement. A "point on the Earth's
surface" is a point, not planar. And the Earth's surface itself hasn't
been described as planar for a long time.

"steve" also doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ballistic", which has
too many sylables. nor does he understand what deduced reckoning is, but
thinks it means watching for lighthouses and nav marks.

According to Jox, a bullet does not travel a ballistic path because it's
guided by the barrel for the initial portion of it's flight. According
to Jox, an ICBM doesn't have a guidance system even though the rest of
the world knows that's not true. According to Jox, the earth's magnetic
field is not an outside reference that the compass reads when you're
doing ded reckoning. He's just full of stupidity.

no does "steve" have any rational clew what cost accounting is (nevermind it
has been a thoroughly understood business principal for more than forty years),
nor does he have anyremote clew that differences (there are many, many, many)
between a generator and an alternator.

And Jox still doesn't believe that the voltage produced by an alternator
isn't related to the rpm. He's easily confused because he may be
thinking of ones with a builtin regulator, which not all have.

no does he have an rational clew how a gyroscope works.

Ah, I see Jox still doesn't believe there's such a thing as a north
seeking gyro even after the principles of how it works were explained to
him and he was shown commercial examples of them. What a moron.

Steve

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 23:49:49 GMT, (Steven Shelikoff)
wrote:

On 15 Jul 2004 13:02:02 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

"steve" also doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ballistic", which has
too many sylables. nor does he understand what deduced reckoning is, but
thinks it means watching for lighthouses and nav marks.

According to Jox, a bullet does not travel a ballistic path because it's
guided by the barrel for the initial portion of it's flight. According
to Jox, an ICBM doesn't have a guidance system even though the rest of
the world knows that's not true.

I should have said that according to Jox, a bullet, after it leaves the
barrel, does not travel a ballistic path because it was guided down the
barrel. Just like an ICBM must not travel a ballistic path during the
final portion of it's flight because it was guided by it's guidance
system during it's initial portion of it's flight. He just doesn't
understand that an ICBM does, indeed have a navigation system. Inertial
and GPS are the usual ones.

Steve

"steve", obviously English is not you first or second or third or fouth
language. go sleep it off for a few days.


(Steven Shelikoff)
wrote:

On 15 Jul 2004 13:02:02 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

"steve" also doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ballistic", which
has
too many sylables. nor does he understand what deduced reckoning is, but
thinks it means watching for lighthouses and nav marks.

According to Jox, a bullet does not travel a ballistic path because it's
guided by the barrel for the initial portion of it's flight. According
to Jox, an ICBM doesn't have a guidance system even though the rest of
the world knows that's not true.

I should have said that according to Jox, a bullet, after it leaves the
barrel, does not travel a ballistic path because it was guided down the
barrel. Just like an ICBM must not travel a ballistic path during the
final portion of it's flight because it was guided by it's guidance
system during it's initial portion of it's flight. He just doesn't
understand that an ICBM does, indeed have a navigation system. Inertial
and GPS are the usual ones.

Steve

"steve", you have been over served. go sleep it off yet again.

From: (Steven Shelikoff)
Date: 7/15/2004 7:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

On 15 Jul 2004 13:02:02 GMT, (JAXAshby) wrote:

no, base kisser, the statement was made that across the distance from NYC to
Phildelphia the surface of the Earth is less than a meter or so from planer
and
therefore there is no need to calculate curvature to know the distance to
sail
a boat. "steve" didn't understand that .

As usual, Jox is wrong. The statement was made in the discussion about
3d vectors, where Jox made the general statement:

btw, if vectors are "3 dimensional", just how can they be used at a
point on the Earth's surface (which by definition is planer).

Anyway you look at it, it's a stupid statement. A "point on the Earth's
surface" is a point, not planar. And the Earth's surface itself hasn't
been described as planar for a long time.

"steve" also doesn't understand the meaning of the word "ballistic", which
has
too many sylables. nor does he understand what deduced reckoning is, but
thinks it means watching for lighthouses and nav marks.

According to Jox, a bullet does not travel a ballistic path because it's
guided by the barrel for the initial portion of it's flight. According
to Jox, an ICBM doesn't have a guidance system even though the rest of
the world knows that's not true. According to Jox, the earth's magnetic
field is not an outside reference that the compass reads when you're
doing ded reckoning. He's just full of stupidity.

no does "steve" have any rational clew what cost accounting is (nevermind it
has been a thoroughly understood business principal for more than forty
years),
nor does he have anyremote clew that differences (there are many, many,
many)
between a generator and an alternator.

And Jox still doesn't believe that the voltage produced by an alternator
isn't related to the rpm. He's easily confused because he may be
thinking of ones with a builtin regulator, which not all have.

no does he have an rational clew how a gyroscope works.

Ah, I see Jox still doesn't believe there's such a thing as a north
seeking gyro even after the principles of how it works were explained to
him and he was shown commercial examples of them. What a moron.

Steve

If you can see outside reference points, then you KNOW where you are...

"steve", who is not known for rational thought, makes that claim that the above
statement is false, in essence saying that if you can see where you are you
still don't know where you are.

why "steve" says that is anybody's guess.

On 15 Jul 2004 03:58:55 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

Wow, I should have paid more attention to Jax's ramblings, they ARE
quite humorous! Now, in context, did he REALLY say that the earth's
surface was planar? The rest I can put off to just not knowing, but
that one is just foolish!

Here's the original reference, which, ironically, was in another thread
back in 2001 where Jox was also confused over Junger's description in
"The Perfect Storm".

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0mb-fz.aol.com

Excerpt:

In his book, "The Perfect Storm", Sabastian Junger makes note that the
(nervous) crew of doomed fishing vessel "cleaned the spark plugs" in the boat's
diesel engine before they set off. That single line instantly branded the
story as fiction and Junger as someone portraying himself as an expert he most
definitely was not. I understand that his portrayal of the thoughts of someone
near to drowning were also substantially at variance with reality. I
understand quite number of other variances exist in Junger's book as well.

I'm not sure Sabastian Junger is a mariner you'd want to go to sea with. I
know for an absolute fact that I wouldn't trust the navigational abilities of
anyone who claimed (nay, insisted) that vectors are "3 dimensional".

btw, if vectors are "3 dimensional", just how can they be used at a point on
the Earth's surface (which by definition is planer).

Spark plugs in a diesel = three dimensions for a vector. Tain't right, Marsha.
Tain't right.

Steve