On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:35:02 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving
body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes
or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.
If this energy GOES somewhere, it's not potential energy. It's
kinetic energy.
<https://taraenergy.com/blog/potential-and-kinetic-energy-explained/> "...potential energy is stationary, with stored energy to be released; kinetic energy is energy in motion, actively using energy for
movement."
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.
If you rapidly descend onto your bicycle saddle, you do produce some
kinetic energy. To answer your question, the kinetic energy is
absorbed by your tires. Jump off a building and land in your saddle
and you will probably explode the tires, which is a good demonstration
of dissipating kinetic energy.
Note that both lowering your center of mass by slowly lowering
yourself onto the saddle or rapidly lowering it by jumping off a
building into the saddle are going to produce any forward motion.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 21:13:00 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 7/15/2024 2:42 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.
Actually, by using your body strength to lower a mass, you do dissipate
the potential energy without (necessarily) converting it to kinetic
energy. You do it by applying opposing work.
Yeah, that's more accurate. I intentionally didn't include that
because it would have required that I include the velocity at which
the center of mass is raised and lowered. Since you mentioned it and
since Tom wanted to know where the energy went, it's easy enough to
explain. If you raise yourself up with your feet on the pedals,
you're also compressing the tires and increasing the size of the
contact patch. That's where the energy went. If you start with your
legs straight and are out of the saddle, lowering yourself into the
saddle will momentarily reduce the load on the tires, thus allowing
the tires to expand (slightly) and momentarily decreasing the size of
the contact patch. When you stop moving up or down, the tire pressure
and contact patch sizes are the same for both cases (up and down).
We haven't even gotten Tom to realize that jumping up and down on the
saddle does not change the direction of the forces involved and
therefore does not produce any forward motion.
Mechanical work is defined as essentially force times distance. (I'm >omitting details Tom wouldn't understand.) The work done in lowering a
mass to a position of rest is equal and opposite to the mass's initial >potential energy. At the end of the process, the energy would be zero.
Again, there are some complications (variable forces, accelerations and >decelerations, various possibilities for the PE datum, etc.) which
people other than Tom might want to discuss. But the simple case should >make the physics clear.
The static model is VERY simple because it ignores any states where
something is moving, accelerating, bouncing, storing or releasing
energy, or involving relativistic complications.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 20:55:24 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The formula is clear - PE grav.=m
Not very clear. You're cut-n-paste did something funny to the letter
"g". I'm seeing a double image of the "g" when I highlight it, but otherwise, it looks normal. How did you do that?
The gain in potential energy is there.
Where? You didn't show what your symbols meant. You threw in a
superfluous period. You didn't use the correct symbol for potential
energy. You didn't explain how the gain is calculated from whatever
is "in there". You didn't provide an corroborating reference or
examples. Try get it right or you'll fail the exam.
Neo : What is the Matrix?
Trinity : The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and
it will find you if you want it to.
I also told you where it went though as a Plant Engineer apparently that wasn't included in your plant.
Huh? That sentence makes no sense. Kinda looks like two partial
sentences spliced together. I would suggest that you proof-read your
rants before posting, but since you always do the opposite of what I recommend, you'll only make things worse. So, I'll just recommend you continue acting illiterate and suggest you not make any corrections.
Incidentally, your NNTP header is still had a problem. It looks like
this, unchanged from Jan 2024:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Petential Energy
doing Work
This was probably caused by your use of the Newshosting.com
Newsreader:
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
In keeping with my previous non-recommendation, I suggest you ignore
the problem. I advised you to try a different newsreader, but
predictably, you did nothing.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
On Mon Jul 15 11:42:30 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:35:02 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving
body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes
or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.
If this energy GOES somewhere, it's not potential energy. It's
kinetic energy.
<https://taraenergy.com/blog/potential-and-kinetic-energy-explained/>
"...potential energy is stationary, with stored energy to be released;
kinetic energy is energy in motion, actively using energy for
movement."
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.
If you rapidly descend onto your bicycle saddle, you do produce some
kinetic energy. To answer your question, the kinetic energy is
absorbed by your tires. Jump off a building and land in your saddle
and you will probably explode the tires, which is a good demonstration
of dissipating kinetic energy.
Note that both lowering your center of mass by slowly lowering
yourself onto the saddle or rapidly lowering it by jumping off a
building into the saddle are going to produce any forward motion.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
More proof of why you're on welfare. Moving the CG down does release kenetic energy but after it is moved it represents LESS potential energy.
On Mon Jul 15 14:19:13 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/15/2024 12:35 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Mon Jul 1 14:15:52 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/1/2024 11:50 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
You clearly stated that if you stand in a parking lot and tip your bike over that it would shoot out from under you ...
Nope, I said essentially the opposite. I suggested you try standing tall >>>> during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the >>>> saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase >>>> in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so.
Sorry you found that confusing; but I'm not surprised.
Krygowski, you want ME to cite your exact words bereft of what you were actually addressing so I am sure that my exact words were at least as accurate as yours since I was addressing the facts.
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.
Lowering the center of mass does not necessarily add kinetic energy to
the mass. Again, as I said:
"I suggested you try standing tall
during a track stand, for maximum potential energy, then dropping to the
saddle. I noted that the reduction in PE does _not_ generate an increase
in Kinetic Energy in that case. There's no mechanism for it to do so."
You've provided no evidence that tilting over in a curve makes a
bike+rider faster, which was the original point under discussion. Your
loud and frantic assertions are proving nothing.
--
- Frank Krygowski
Why do you pretend to know so much more than I do?
Does that in some way make you feel more like and engineer and less like a teacher? BTW, I rode Trials so you're not informing anyone about anything.
The question was asking Liebermann to THINK about where energy goes when it is expended.
Energy is neither created nor distroyed.
On Mon Jul 15 15:11:48 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 20:55:24 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The formula is clear - PE grav.=m
Not very clear. You're cut-n-paste did something funny to the letter
"g". I'm seeing a double image of the "g" when I highlight it, but
otherwise, it looks normal. How did you do that?
The gain in potential energy is there.
Where? You didn't show what your symbols meant. You threw in a
superfluous period. You didn't use the correct symbol for potential
energy. You didn't explain how the gain is calculated from whatever
is "in there". You didn't provide an corroborating reference or
examples. Try get it right or you'll fail the exam.
Neo : What is the Matrix?
Trinity : The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and
it will find you if you want it to.
I also told you where it went though as a Plant Engineer apparently that wasn't included in your plant.
Huh? That sentence makes no sense. Kinda looks like two partial
sentences spliced together. I would suggest that you proof-read your
rants before posting, but since you always do the opposite of what I
recommend, you'll only make things worse. So, I'll just recommend you
continue acting illiterate and suggest you not make any corrections.
Incidentally, your NNTP header is still had a problem. It looks like
this, unchanged from Jan 2024:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Petential Energy
doing Work
This was probably caused by your use of the Newshosting.com
Newsreader:
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
In keeping with my previous non-recommendation, I suggest you ignore
the problem. I advised you to try a different newsreader, but
predictably, you did nothing.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
You can be a lot clearer when you say "Duhhhhhh".
On 11/17/2024 11:56 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jul 15 11:42:30 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:35:02 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving
body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes
or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.
If this energy GOES somewhere, it's not potential energy. It's
kinetic energy.
<https://taraenergy.com/blog/potential-and-kinetic-energy-explained/>
"...potential energy is stationary, with stored energy to be released;
kinetic energy is energy in motion, actively using energy for
movement."
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving)
energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.
If you rapidly descend onto your bicycle saddle, you do produce some
kinetic energy. To answer your question, the kinetic energy is
absorbed by your tires. Jump off a building and land in your saddle
and you will probably explode the tires, which is a good demonstration
of dissipating kinetic energy.
Note that both lowering your center of mass by slowly lowering
yourself onto the saddle or rapidly lowering it by jumping off a
building into the saddle are going to produce any forward motion.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
More proof of why you're on welfare. Moving the CG down does release kenetic energy but after it is moved it represents LESS potential energy.
That's exactly what Jeff wrote, which isn't what you wrote previously.
> Why was this so difficult for you to understand and why did you feel
the need to misrepretent my statement to make yourself feel clever?
It might be simpler if you admitted you were wrong, then jeff corrected
you, and now you're agreeing with him.
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.
On 11/17/2024 5:09 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jul 15 15:11:48 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 20:55:24 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The formula is clear - PE grav.=m
Not very clear. You're cut-n-paste did something funny to the letter
"g". I'm seeing a double image of the "g" when I highlight it, but
otherwise, it looks normal. How did you do that?
The gain in potential energy is there.
Where? You didn't show what your symbols meant. You threw in a
superfluous period. You didn't use the correct symbol for potential
energy. You didn't explain how the gain is calculated from whatever
is "in there". You didn't provide an corroborating reference or
examples. Try get it right or you'll fail the exam.
Neo : What is the Matrix?
Trinity : The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and
it will find you if you want it to.
I also told you where it went though as a Plant Engineer apparently that wasn't included in your plant.
Huh? That sentence makes no sense. Kinda looks like two partial
sentences spliced together. I would suggest that you proof-read your
rants before posting, but since you always do the opposite of what I
recommend, you'll only make things worse. So, I'll just recommend you
continue acting illiterate and suggest you not make any corrections.
Incidentally, your NNTP header is still had a problem. It looks like
this, unchanged from Jan 2024:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Petential Energy
doing Work
This was probably caused by your use of the Newshosting.com
Newsreader:
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
In keeping with my previous non-recommendation, I suggest you ignore
the problem. I advised you to try a different newsreader, but
predictably, you did nothing.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
You can be a lot clearer when you say "Duhhhhhh".
Clearly the only language you understand.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:47:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.
Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all
the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And
that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
Google Fuchsia - 2021
On 11/18/2024 11:10 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:47:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>In the U.S., a company can give an employee the title "engineer" for
wrote:
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.
Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
internal purposes, as long as his work is contained only within the
company, so to speak. But a person doing work that affects the public,
or a person hiring himself out to other companies, needs a Professional >Engineering license.
person has to have a proper engineering degree and documented work
experience and references.
I recall one tiny three person company that I did some work for. One of
the three was very incompetent technically, but in a newspaper
interview, he called himself an "engineer." His degree was in business - >which is where most guys transferred to if they were flunking out of >engineering.
On Mon Nov 18 13:10:23 2024 Shadow wrote:here purposely hid the fact that Obama was a homosexual prostitute. I'm sure that in Argentina things are a great deal better.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:47:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.
Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all
the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And
that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s
Well obviously the standards in Argentina must be far better than in the US as is shown by the way that the US used to be so far ahead in technology before Obama was elected and they started hiring people based on their sexual preferences. The media
On 11/18/2024 11:10 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:47:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>In the U.S., a company can give an employee the title "engineer" for
wrote:
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.
Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
internal purposes, as long as his work is contained only within the
company, so to speak. But a person doing work that affects the public,
or a person hiring himself out to other companies, needs a Professional >Engineering license. To qualify to even take the licensing test, a
person has to have a proper engineering degree and documented work
experience and references.
I recall one tiny three person company that I did some work for. One of
the three was very incompetent technically, but in a newspaper
interview, he called himself an "engineer." His degree was in business - >which is where most guys transferred to if they were flunking out of >engineering.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 12:47:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 11/18/2024 11:10 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:47:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>In the U.S., a company can give an employee the title "engineer" for
wrote:
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.
Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
internal purposes, as long as his work is contained only within the
company, so to speak. But a person doing work that affects the public,
or a person hiring himself out to other companies, needs a Professional
Engineering license.
Nonsense.
To qualify to even take the licensing test, a
person has to have a proper engineering degree and documented work
experience and references.
I recall one tiny three person company that I did some work for. One of
the three was very incompetent technically, but in a newspaper
interview, he called himself an "engineer." His degree was in business -
which is where most guys transferred to if they were flunking out of
engineering.
<eyeroll> More Krygowski nonsense.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Mon Nov 18 06:04:00 2024 zen cycle wrote:
On 11/17/2024 5:09 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jul 15 15:11:48 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 20:55:24 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
The formula is clear - PE grav.=m
Not very clear. You're cut-n-paste did something funny to the letter
"g". I'm seeing a double image of the "g" when I highlight it, but
otherwise, it looks normal. How did you do that?
The gain in potential energy is there.
Where? You didn't show what your symbols meant. You threw in a
superfluous period. You didn't use the correct symbol for potential
energy. You didn't explain how the gain is calculated from whatever
is "in there". You didn't provide an corroborating reference or
examples. Try get it right or you'll fail the exam.
Neo : What is the Matrix?
Trinity : The answer is out there, Neo, and it's looking for you, and
it will find you if you want it to.
I also told you where it went though as a Plant Engineer apparently that wasn't included in your plant.
Huh? That sentence makes no sense. Kinda looks like two partial
sentences spliced together. I would suggest that you proof-read your
rants before posting, but since you always do the opposite of what I
recommend, you'll only make things worse. So, I'll just recommend you >>>> continue acting illiterate and suggest you not make any corrections.
Incidentally, your NNTP header is still had a problem. It looks like
this, unchanged from Jan 2024:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Petential Energy
doing Work
This was probably caused by your use of the Newshosting.com
Newsreader:
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
In keeping with my previous non-recommendation, I suggest you ignore
the problem. I advised you to try a different newsreader, but
predictably, you did nothing.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
You can be a lot clearer when you say "Duhhhhhh".
Clearly the only language you understand.
Just another case of a cowardly little punk (camel shit) afraid of the whole world.
On Mon Nov 18 05:57:29 2024 zen cycle wrote:
On 11/17/2024 11:56 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jul 15 11:42:30 2024 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 16:35:02 GMT, Tom Kunich <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Lowering the center of gravity in a gravity field of a moving
body ADDS energy to the mass. Either tell us where is goes
or STOP trying to imply it doesn't.
If this energy GOES somewhere, it's not potential energy. It's
kinetic energy.
<https://taraenergy.com/blog/potential-and-kinetic-energy-explained/>
"...potential energy is stationary, with stored energy to be released; >>>> kinetic energy is energy in motion, actively using energy for
movement."
By slowly lowering your center of mass, you are lowering your
potential energy. Potential energy is where nothing is moving. You
have the potential of moving but there's little or no kinetic (moving) >>>> energy produced. In other words, you cannot dissipate potential
energy without first converting it to kinetic energy.
If you rapidly descend onto your bicycle saddle, you do produce some
kinetic energy. To answer your question, the kinetic energy is
absorbed by your tires. Jump off a building and land in your saddle
and you will probably explode the tires, which is a good demonstration >>>> of dissipating kinetic energy.
Note that both lowering your center of mass by slowly lowering
yourself onto the saddle or rapidly lowering it by jumping off a
building into the saddle are going to produce any forward motion.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
More proof of why you're on welfare. Moving the CG down does release kenetic energy but after it is moved it represents LESS potential energy.
That's exactly what Jeff wrote, which isn't what you wrote previously.
> Why was this so difficult for you to understand and why did you feel
the need to misrepretent my statement to make yourself feel clever?
It might be simpler if you admitted you were wrong, then jeff corrected
you, and now you're agreeing with him.
Is this the opinion of a QC expert that never doex any actual work for his employer?
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:18:43 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>here purposely hid the fact that Obama was a homosexual prostitute. I'm sure that in Argentina things are a great deal better.
wrote:
On Mon Nov 18 13:10:23 2024 Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:47:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.
Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all
the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And
that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s
Well obviously the standards in Argentina must be far better than in the US as is shown by the way that the US used to be so far ahead in technology before Obama was elected and they started hiring people based on their sexual preferences. The media
Argentina is Chaos itself. They elected a madman to govern it.
He believes in not taxing the rich. And lowering the salaries of the
poor. And firing all civil servants (Except the military and
judiciary, who had massive wage increases, which increased the
national debt, so they had to get yet another loan from the IMF)
The result? Three digit inflation, massive unemployment,
around 10.000 small/medium businesses filed for bankruptcy from
absolute lack of customers and 60% of Argentineans don't have anything
to eat.
How is that relevant to Brazil? Brazil is doing much, much
better. And how is this relevant to Obama? He's not a woman hater. He
doesn't rape them or treat the like slaves. I think you got the wrong President.
[]'s
On 11/18/2024 1:21 PM, Shadow wrote:here purposely hid the fact that Obama was a homosexual prostitute. I'm sure that in Argentina things are a great deal better.
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:18:43 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Nov 18 13:10:23 2024 Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:47:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.
Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all
the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And >>>> that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s
Well obviously the standards in Argentina must be far better than in the US as is shown by the way that the US used to be so far ahead in technology before Obama was elected and they started hiring people based on their sexual preferences. The media
Argentina is Chaos itself. They elected a madman to govern it.
He believes in not taxing the rich. And lowering the salaries of the
poor. And firing all civil servants (Except the military and
judiciary, who had massive wage increases, which increased the
national debt, so they had to get yet another loan from the IMF)
The result? Three digit inflation, massive unemployment,
around 10.000 small/medium businesses filed for bankruptcy from
absolute lack of customers and 60% of Argentineans don't have anything
to eat.
How is that relevant to Brazil? Brazil is doing much, much
better. And how is this relevant to Obama? He's not a woman hater. He
doesn't rape them or treat the like slaves. I think you got the wrong
President.
[]'s
I believe you have misrepresented Mr Millei's positions
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:25:14 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:here purposely hid the fact that Obama was a homosexual prostitute. I'm sure that in Argentina things are a great deal better.
On 11/18/2024 1:21 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 16:18:43 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Mon Nov 18 13:10:23 2024 Shadow wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 15:47:53 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Stop pretending to be an engineer because englineers are people who DO engineering.
Methinks an engineer is someone with a qualification to be an
engineer. Here in Brazil that has to be a University degree, but I
suppose it might vary country to country.
And of course, an engineer is still an engineer if he decides
to go for another diploma, like art or biology. LOL, he could go all >>>>> the way down and become a lawyer...
And, as in every profession, an engineer can teach others. He
doesn't have to work on some company's projects....
Imagine how much the profession would degrade if an engineer
was taught my a tech. He'd be as good as the tech. But not better. And >>>>> that is not good enough.
HTH
[]'s
Well obviously the standards in Argentina must be far better than in the US as is shown by the way that the US used to be so far ahead in technology before Obama was elected and they started hiring people based on their sexual preferences. The media
Argentina is Chaos itself. They elected a madman to govern it.
He believes in not taxing the rich. And lowering the salaries of the
poor. And firing all civil servants (Except the military and
judiciary, who had massive wage increases, which increased the
national debt, so they had to get yet another loan from the IMF)
The result? Three digit inflation, massive unemployment,
around 10.000 small/medium businesses filed for bankruptcy from
absolute lack of customers and 60% of Argentineans don't have anything
to eat.
How is that relevant to Brazil? Brazil is doing much, much
better. And how is this relevant to Obama? He's not a woman hater. He
doesn't rape them or treat the like slaves. I think you got the wrong
President.
[]'s
I believe you have misrepresented Mr Millei's positions
Milei isn't a woman chaser. A dog chaser, perhaps.
His first girlfriend coincided with his campaign for
president. He was over 50 at the time. A year after he was elected,
he dumped her and announced his "romance" with an old (and still
popular) TV star. Normal men don't start dating at 50. Argentineans
are very "machista". They would never vote for someone who was
obviously gay.
He's about as convincing as Bolsonaro and his 3 "loves". All prostitutes, I mean, "escorts". LOL
[]'s
It may be a special gift, but I seldom look to things like
that, or hair color, or which school someone attended if any
or other such when evaluating policy. Meh.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 429 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 117:22:58 |
| Calls: | 9,056 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,396 |
| Messages: | 6,016,552 |