Re: Technical: heels on foot plate?


paul_v_smith@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
KC wrote:

Did you have a point, or are you just trying to pick more of a fight?

Pick a fight? What have I done in this *entire thread* that's
tantamount to picking a fight? In my own *defense* I called you
"bullheaded, rude, condescending and patronizing," and asked for an
apology, but I never attacked you.

QED

QED? Hardly. If you insult me, and I point out your behavior as rude,
that is not *picking* a fight, that is defense. Actually, it could be
argued that it's not even defense, it's simply observation.

My point was as I said. You were being unscientific. That's my point.
El puntoroony. Right there.

I'll leave that there. It needs to be restated.

Yes, do "go figure" it out. You fooled yourself into proving something
that is incorrect. That's quite a feat Mr. Wizard. Do you approach
science this way all the time?

What did I fool myself into proving, Paul? Did I make any statements
about who was "right" in my post? Did I make any statements at ALL in
that last post of mine, other than reporting observations? Please do tell.

I'll leave these unanswered questions also.

I never said that it was impossible to move the system one direction or
the other using transfer of momentum and the changes in Drag, but we

And I never claimed you said it was impossible.

are definitely in complete opposition regarding how it is done. You

You don't know that.

Yes I do!

No, you DON'T. I never stated that what you achieved on the water
could not be done. I only stated that what *I* did can be done, which
is true.

You even provided the relevant material:
" I can move a 1x in a net bow-ward direction without using the oars, by
quickly drawing my feet toward my seat (scoot the boat underneath me is
how I think of it), carefully stopping that motion, and then very
carefully and slowly, returning to a legs-extended position."

I've already shown theses equivalencies before, but I can do it again:
"quickly drawing my feet toward my seat"=Rushed revovery
"carefully and slowly, returning to a legs-extended position" = Slow
Drive

Okay, fine. Stick to normal rowing terminology. I find it confuses
the issue since what we're talking about is hardly rowing. But as long
as we agree that this is not rowing. I'm okay to use rowing
terminology if that helps.

Do exactly those things, no tricks, and the system displacement, and
momentum, is going to be in the direction the stern is pointed.
Whatever "trick" you do is exactly the opposite of what you are saying
you are doing, if you get net displacement in the boward direction.

There are no tricks, Paul. If you had an open mind and tried it the
way I described it, you'd see it works. I am not able to bypass laws
of physics with tricks, no matter what you think of me. If you are
UNABLE to do this the way I describe, that doesn't mean it can't be
done. I was unable to perform a good catch the way my coach described
it when I first started to row. I did not however, declare to him that
it couldn't be done, and that he was simply using "tricks" to achieve a
good catch.

"Lying" might be a bit strong of a word for it, but you are the self
declared mechanical engineering expert.

I never declared myself an expert in ANYTHING, and never would. If
someone else feels that way fine, but I do not. I know the limitations
of my knowledge, and they stop well short of what I consider "expert".
I may know more about engineering than people who've never studied it,
and to them that may qualify as "expert" but to me it doesn't.

Sheesh, and you and your lackey tell me to keep up? I see now that MS

My *lackey*??? LOL. That's a good one. Mike is many things, but he is
no one's lackey.

is arguing with Carl also. Albeit, with a tiny bit of respect.

Unlike how you have handled yourself here. Except for when I was
defending myself, I have shown nothing but respect and moderation in my
posts. You have been the inflamatory one.

apparently have lost objectivity, not good in your current situation of
authoring a thesis.

Now Paul, that's crossing the line again. That's mean, rude, and
insulting. I didn't deserve that. What did I write in this thread that
warrants that sort of comment? Besides the fact that it's not even
true. Show me evidence that I have lost objectivity, please.

"I called you "bullheaded, rude, condescending and patronizing,""
QED

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means."
-Inigo Montoya

Again, I ask you to show me how I lost *objectivity* with regard to
considering this on-water exercise we are discussing.

BTW, calling you "bullheaded, rude, condescending and patronizing" at
the time was a very objective observation. Your words to me that
prompted that accusation were derserving of such characterization.

So from this post of yours, Paul, I must infer that you are calling me a
liar. Is that the case? I have not stated nor implied that you lied
about *your* on-water exercise. Are you saying I lied? Did you lie?

Everything has implications.
No, I did not lie.
No, I did not call you a liar (also addressed above). I'm sure you
will believe me when I say that if I was going to call you a liar, it
would be stated something like, "You are a liar." (that's the nature of
being "quite clear").

Okay then, if you did not lie, and I did not lie, then we were both
able to acheive what we claim to have acheived. There are several
scenarios that would explain this.

No, I am not going to accept some lame form of "maybe we both are
right".

This is just one scenario.

Good, I'm glad that you want to stick with the fact that one of us is
right and the other wrong.

That's very political of you, Paul. Not very scientific though.
I have no such agenda.

You make a case that I was wrong and I'll accept that, until
then, keep squirming as much as you want, it's rather entertaining.

I've done no squirming. Again, back up your accusations, please.

As stated above:
"You don't know that."
QED

Again, I was only stating a truth: you do not know my thoughts on the
explanation of this issue. That's not squirming, it's fact.

BTW, repeated use of the term, "QED" does not make you more scientific,
Paul.

In the mean time, Paul, take your chill pill, and try to think more
scientifically. I have already taken this advice.

Heading out to row, best chill pill I know, scientific cap snugged down

....over your eyes, apparently.

Before you respond again, stop. Spend a good while and step back from
your emotions surrounding this thread, as well as your pride. Try to
recall what it means to be scientific in one's methods and thought
processes. (If you were never taught this, maybe you should look it
up.) If you truly can do this, our conversation will take a
significant turn in a different direction.

One final question: can you move back and forth on the slide in a 1x,
without the use of the oars, and cause no (or very little) motion of
the hull in either direction? I can do this. I have to move *VERY*
slowly, and there is a *tiny* bit of motion in the hull, but it's very
small.

-Kieran

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sumito
    ... your attack is defensive; your defense hurts him; your punches lead to your ... If Silat is so sophisticated, ... Yet every Silat book I've ever seen is devoid of core principles and ... since they already can fight good. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: [fw-wiz] An article from Peter Tippett/TruSecure...
    ... On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Paul D. Robertson wrote: ... that defense in depth 1) buys the organization time in dealing with new ... For many companies, accepting Darren Reed's ... costs of maintenance slightly. ...
    (Firewall-Wizards)
  • Re: Volhards Canine Personality Test
    ... Prey = 40 ... Pack = 65 ... Defense - Fight = 20 ... Defense - Flight = 45 ...
    (rec.pets.dogs.behavior)
  • Re: ATWT - Emily/spoiler spec
    ... jail time with a defense of pre-partum psychosis. ... and Paul did the nasty most recently. ... seem to do all the time - Dusty will decide not to press charges. ...
    (rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs)
  • Quick to judge!
    ... Paul said, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, ... When it comes to doctrines we have a whole set of issues about which ...
    (soc.religion.christian)