chutzpah

22july2013 said:

chutzpah said:

22july2013 said:

chutzpah said:

22july2013 said:

In that sense, you win the argument, but that's because you changed the explicit parameters of the argument which was a horizontal wind.

You are the only one who mentioned horizontal wind, something that basically doesn't exist in nature.  And you also said you weren't making an argument either, because apparently you were so confident in your correctness it wasn't necessary.  You've made yourself look a right tit here.

When the falling object approaches the last hundred feet above the ground there is no vertical wind. I'm sure the original poster will realize that when he reflects on my question to him. And notice that I have refrained from calling people offensive names who disagree with me.

Why are you introducing a new criteria of the last hundred feet above the ground?  Did you really think no one would pull you up on another change of goalposts in your supposed non-argument?  I doubt it's even true, wind simply doesn't work in a uniformly horizontal fashion, at least for any length of time.

You done goofed man, just admit it and move on.  This faux politeness as a veneer over passive aggressive superiority and pompousness is doing nothing for anyone.

Name calling still doesn't help you, except in your own mind.

Vertical winds can't exist at ground level. You haven't disputed that.

We're down to ground level now, not a hundred feet above the ground?  There's no wind at all at ground level, because there's a little thing called the ground in the way.  If you don't actually mean the silly thing you just said and are still talking about the hundred feet above ground then I said I doubt it's true, and I very much do.  It doesn't make any sense to me, wind only operating in a totally horizontal direction.  Wind hits things and has eddies, just like water. It goes left, it goes right, it goes up, it goes down.  It forms cyclones, it has updraft, it has downdraft.  It exists in three dimensional space.  So not just horizontal. Why on earth would it just be horizontal? Am I imagining it when I see leaves dancing on the wind, up and down, here, there and everywhere?

But I don't claim to be an expert at all, wind is not an area I have an excess of knowledge about.  You're the one making the ludicrous sounding claim, with zero reference to any science, why don't you try offering some proof or substantive argument instead of clutching your pearls that I called you a tit?

Or don't, I really don't care much, I just think you're being a bit of a tit.

22july2013 said:

chutzpah said:

22july2013 said:

In that sense, you win the argument, but that's because you changed the explicit parameters of the argument which was a horizontal wind.

You are the only one who mentioned horizontal wind, something that basically doesn't exist in nature.  And you also said you weren't making an argument either, because apparently you were so confident in your correctness it wasn't necessary.  You've made yourself look a right tit here.

When the falling object approaches the last hundred feet above the ground there is no vertical wind. I'm sure the original poster will realize that when he reflects on my question to him. And notice that I have refrained from calling people offensive names who disagree with me.

Why are you introducing a new criteria of the last hundred feet above the ground?  Did you really think no one would pull you up on another change of goalposts in your supposed non-argument?  I doubt it's even true, wind simply doesn't work in a uniformly horizontal fashion, at least for any length of time.

You done goofed man, just admit it and move on.  This faux politeness as a veneer over passive aggressive superiority and pompousness is doing nothing for anyone.

danox said:

Legalized thievery, 

Not really, Apple haven’t been deprived of anything.

And if China has an interest in breaking into iOS and copying stuff then it’s a near certainty that they’ll have already done it, they don’t need Correlium. 

22july2013 said:

In that sense, you win the argument, but that's because you changed the explicit parameters of the argument which was a horizontal wind.

You are the only one who mentioned horizontal wind, something that basically doesn't exist in nature.  And you also said you weren't making an argument either, because apparently you were so confident in your correctness it wasn't necessary.  You've made yourself look a right tit here.

hub hub hub