badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

>> There isn't anyone intelligent in racing circuits who doesn't know the
>> significance of the catenary in terms of teaching basic racing skills.
>
> I�m not a racer, but I would guess it has something to do with calculating
> how to enter and exit a curve. As a motorcycle rider there are some very
> fine points of curve management one must learn to handle their bike safely.

Hi badgolferman,

This is a seminal discussion which shows what the iKooks really are.

Exactly. This is why I've never considered you (or Ant or Steve, et al.) an
iKook but why _everyone_ knows that Alan Baker, for one, is an iKook.

You have the cognitive ability to comprehend that physical forces are the
same in all directions, particularly the forces that suspend a bridge are
the same forces that act upon a motorcycle navigating a curve at speed.

As an aside (owning a K1200 myself as I believe you have a Gold Wing), it
mostly applies in racing circuits (as the real world has opposing traffic).

It's likely that Alan Baker, even after furiously searching for the
definition, found mostly equidistant suspension bridging references, and
yet, since he lacks any education in Calculus or Physics, he can't relate
the vertical directional forces with the same horizontally directed forces.

Worse, while he claims to own a BMW, he's ignorant of the most basic of the
terms used for bimmers and beemers alike, which means his mind is on off.

Likewise, he claims to "teach racing" and yet he's likely never heard of a
catenary, which, let's be clear, would be discussed in any racing circuit
(other than straight-line drag racing perhaps, as no curves are involved).

*How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*

The point of bringing up the catenary or the metric tensor or Christoffel
symbols or even Dunning Kruger effects isn't so much what they are - but
that the iKooks are ignorant of them and yet they form strong opinions.

Jolly Roger thinks he's an iKook because "we disagree" but that's yet
another trait of the iKook to completely misunderstand the obvious.

He's an iKook not because we disagree - but because he strongly believes in
things which he's completely ignorant of - for example, Jolly Roger
repeatedly claims Apple fully patches older releases - when Apple doesn't.

Sure. We disagree. But my disagreement is based on Apple's own words.
His belief system is based on absolutely no facts whatsoever that matter.

Apple says they do not fully patch older releases.
Jolly Roger says they do.
In fact, he's sure of it.

Simply because Apple fixed a bug or two in an older release.
That's full "proof" to Jolly Roger that Apple fully patches older releases!

No fact can or will sway Jolly Roger from his purely imaginary beliefs.

*How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*

Not only do the iKooks lack that cognitive ability, badgolferman, but they
form strong opinions that all science is "dubious" simply because they
a. are ignorant of it...
b. because they're uneducated...
c. as a result of their low IQ

It's why the iKooks can't put together that Apple's variant excuses for
removing basic functionality is because Apple wants to them to buy it back.

Instead of putting things together, as you just did (and as most normal
adults would do), they accept Apple's individual explanations (e.g., "it's
courageous") because it's much simpler for them to accept a direct excuse.

The whole point of this thread is to point out what iKooks really are.

My main point about the iKooks is simply that they form strong opinions
about things that they spend absolutely no energy actually understanding.

Alan Browne, for example, repeatedly claims there is no walled garden
simply because he's completely ignorant that he's logging into it.

*How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*

This is a classic Dunning-Kruger first quartile trait, where they are so
confident of their assessments that they don't realize how wrong they are.

It's what I'm trying to patiently explain to Hemidactylus, who deprecated
the Dunning-Kruger graphs, where I fit into those same graphs as do you.

The difference is that I _understand_ what Dunning-Kruger papers explained.

It's the same with the catenary where, by now, Alan Baker has probably
furiously googled enough to find that it's a well-taught well-discussed
term in racing (particularly in motorcycle racing, as you've surmised).

Yet, he's likely never heard of it nor, more importantly, since ignorance
can be cured, he doesn't understand that it's an extremely important fact.

Just as nospam can't stand that he was ignorant that iOS doesn't have any
app store apps that graphically show wi-fi signal strength over time,
they'll make a childish kindergarten excuse for why they lack knowledge.

In nospam's case, that childish excuse is he'll repeatedly claim that apps
exist - and yet - when asked to "name just one" - he's never once named it.

*How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*

It's the same with Hemidactylus claiming the D-K is a weapon when everyone
fits into the D-K graphs - yes - everyone - including you and including me.

*How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*

The iKooks don't even realize _why_ they're iKooks, badgolferman.

But they prove it whenever the only way they can deal with facts that
they're ignorant of, like Alan Browne did, is to call people an 'it'.

Do you know why Alan Browne calls people dealing with facts an 'it'?
I do.

HINT: If he negates the person, he feels he's negated all the facts too.
--
How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?

On 2023-12-22 09:12, Wally J wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> There isn't anyone intelligent in racing circuits who doesn't know the
>>> significance of the catenary in terms of teaching basic racing skills.
>>
>> I▌ not a racer, but I would guess it has something to do with calculating
>> how to enter and exit a curve. As a motorcycle rider there are some very
>> fine points of curve management one must learn to handle their bike safely.
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> This is a seminal discussion which shows what the iKooks really are.
>
> Exactly. This is why I've never considered you (or Ant or Steve, et al.) an
> iKook but why _everyone_ knows that Alan Baker, for one, is an iKook.
>
> You have the cognitive ability to comprehend that physical forces are the
> same in all directions, particularly the forces that suspend a bridge are
> the same forces that act upon a motorcycle navigating a curve at speed.
>
> As an aside (owning a K1200 myself as I believe you have a Gold Wing), it
> mostly applies in racing circuits (as the real world has opposing traffic).
>
> It's likely that Alan Baker, even after furiously searching for the
> definition, found mostly equidistant suspension bridging references, and
> yet, since he lacks any education in Calculus or Physics, he can't relate
> the vertical directional forces with the same horizontally directed forces.

LOL!

I know precisely what a catenary is.

>
> Worse, while he claims to own a BMW, he's ignorant of the most basic of the
> terms used for bimmers and beemers alike, which means his mind is on off.

I DO own a BMW.

>
> Likewise, he claims to "teach racing" and yet he's likely never heard of a
> catenary, which, let's be clear, would be discussed in any racing circuit
> (other than straight-line drag racing perhaps, as no curves are involved).

Sorry, but the line for a car going through a corner is not described by
a catenary.

>
> *How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*
>
> The point of bringing up the catenary or the metric tensor or Christoffel
> symbols or even Dunning Kruger effects isn't so much what they are - but
> that the iKooks are ignorant of them and yet they form strong opinions.
>
> Jolly Roger thinks he's an iKook because "we disagree" but that's yet
> another trait of the iKook to completely misunderstand the obvious.
>
> He's an iKook not because we disagree - but because he strongly believes in
> things which he's completely ignorant of - for example, Jolly Roger
> repeatedly claims Apple fully patches older releases - when Apple doesn't.
>
> Sure. We disagree. But my disagreement is based on Apple's own words.
> His belief system is based on absolutely no facts whatsoever that matter.
>
> Apple says they do not fully patch older releases.
> Jolly Roger says they do.
> In fact, he's sure of it.
>
> Simply because Apple fixed a bug or two in an older release.
> That's full "proof" to Jolly Roger that Apple fully patches older releases!
>
> No fact can or will sway Jolly Roger from his purely imaginary beliefs.
>
> *How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*
>
> Not only do the iKooks lack that cognitive ability, badgolferman, but they
> form strong opinions that all science is "dubious" simply because they
> a. are ignorant of it...
> b. because they're uneducated...
> c. as a result of their low IQ
>
> It's why the iKooks can't put together that Apple's variant excuses for
> removing basic functionality is because Apple wants to them to buy it back.
>
> Instead of putting things together, as you just did (and as most normal
> adults would do), they accept Apple's individual explanations (e.g., "it's
> courageous") because it's much simpler for them to accept a direct excuse.
>
> The whole point of this thread is to point out what iKooks really are.
>
> My main point about the iKooks is simply that they form strong opinions
> about things that they spend absolutely no energy actually understanding.
>
> Alan Browne, for example, repeatedly claims there is no walled garden
> simply because he's completely ignorant that he's logging into it.
>
> *How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*
>
> This is a classic Dunning-Kruger first quartile trait, where they are so
> confident of their assessments that they don't realize how wrong they are.
>
> It's what I'm trying to patiently explain to Hemidactylus, who deprecated
> the Dunning-Kruger graphs, where I fit into those same graphs as do you.
>
> The difference is that I _understand_ what Dunning-Kruger papers explained.
>
> It's the same with the catenary where, by now, Alan Baker has probably
> furiously googled enough to find that it's a well-taught well-discussed
> term in racing (particularly in motorcycle racing, as you've surmised).
>
> Yet, he's likely never heard of it nor, more importantly, since ignorance
> can be cured, he doesn't understand that it's an extremely important fact.
>
> Just as nospam can't stand that he was ignorant that iOS doesn't have any
> app store apps that graphically show wi-fi signal strength over time,
> they'll make a childish kindergarten excuse for why they lack knowledge.
>
> In nospam's case, that childish excuse is he'll repeatedly claim that apps
> exist - and yet - when asked to "name just one" - he's never once named it.
>
> *How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*
>
> It's the same with Hemidactylus claiming the D-K is a weapon when everyone
> fits into the D-K graphs - yes - everyone - including you and including me.
>
> *How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*
>
> The iKooks don't even realize _why_ they're iKooks, badgolferman.
>
> But they prove it whenever the only way they can deal with facts that
> they're ignorant of, like Alan Browne did, is to call people an 'it'.
>
> Do you know why Alan Browne calls people dealing with facts an 'it'?
> I do.
>
> HINT: If he negates the person, he feels he's negated all the facts too.

You do yammer on, don't you?

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-22 09:12, Wally J wrote:
>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>> There isn't anyone intelligent in racing circuits who doesn't know the
>>>> significance of the catenary in terms of teaching basic racing skills.
>>>
>>> I▌ not a racer, but I would guess it has something to do with calculating
>>> how to enter and exit a curve. As a motorcycle rider there are some very
>>> fine points of curve management one must learn to handle their bike safely.
>>
>> Hi badgolferman,
>>
>> This is a seminal discussion which shows what the iKooks really are.
>>
>> Exactly. This is why I've never considered you (or Ant or Steve, et al.) an
>> iKook but why _everyone_ knows that Alan Baker, for one, is an iKook.
>>
>> You have the cognitive ability to comprehend that physical forces are the
>> same in all directions, particularly the forces that suspend a bridge are
>> the same forces that act upon a motorcycle navigating a curve at speed.
>>
>> As an aside (owning a K1200 myself as I believe you have a Gold Wing), it
>> mostly applies in racing circuits (as the real world has opposing traffic).
>>
>> It's likely that Alan Baker, even after furiously searching for the
>> definition, found mostly equidistant suspension bridging references, and
>> yet, since he lacks any education in Calculus or Physics, he can't relate
>> the vertical directional forces with the same horizontally directed forces.
>
> LOL!
>
> I know precisely what a catenary is.
>
>>
>> Worse, while he claims to own a BMW, he's ignorant of the most basic of the
>> terms used for bimmers and beemers alike, which means his mind is on off.
>
> I DO own a BMW.
>
>>
>> Likewise, he claims to "teach racing" and yet he's likely never heard of a
>> catenary, which, let's be clear, would be discussed in any racing circuit
>> (other than straight-line drag racing perhaps, as no curves are involved).
>
> Sorry, but the line for a car going through a corner is not described by
> a catenary.
>
>>
>> *How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*
>>
>> The point of bringing up the catenary or the metric tensor or Christoffel
>> symbols or even Dunning Kruger effects isn't so much what they are - but
>> that the iKooks are ignorant of them and yet they form strong opinions.
>>
>> Jolly Roger thinks he's an iKook because "we disagree" but that's yet
>> another trait of the iKook to completely misunderstand the obvious.
>>
>> He's an iKook not because we disagree - but because he strongly believes in
>> things which he's completely ignorant of - for example, Jolly Roger
>> repeatedly claims Apple fully patches older releases - when Apple doesn't.
>>
>> Sure. We disagree. But my disagreement is based on Apple's own words.
>> His belief system is based on absolutely no facts whatsoever that matter.
>>
>> Apple says they do not fully patch older releases.
>> Jolly Roger says they do.
>> In fact, he's sure of it.
>>
>> Simply because Apple fixed a bug or two in an older release.
>> That's full "proof" to Jolly Roger that Apple fully patches older releases!
>>
>> No fact can or will sway Jolly Roger from his purely imaginary beliefs.
>>
>> *How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*
>>
>> Not only do the iKooks lack that cognitive ability, badgolferman, but they
>> form strong opinions that all science is "dubious" simply because they
>> a. are ignorant of it...
>> b. because they're uneducated...
>> c. as a result of their low IQ
>>
>> It's why the iKooks can't put together that Apple's variant excuses for
>> removing basic functionality is because Apple wants to them to buy it back.
>>
>> Instead of putting things together, as you just did (and as most normal
>> adults would do), they accept Apple's individual explanations (e.g., "it's
>> courageous") because it's much simpler for them to accept a direct excuse.
>>
>> The whole point of this thread is to point out what iKooks really are.
>>
>> My main point about the iKooks is simply that they form strong opinions
>> about things that they spend absolutely no energy actually understanding.
>>
>> Alan Browne, for example, repeatedly claims there is no walled garden
>> simply because he's completely ignorant that he's logging into it.
>>
>> *How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*
>>
>> This is a classic Dunning-Kruger first quartile trait, where they are so
>> confident of their assessments that they don't realize how wrong they are.
>>
>> It's what I'm trying to patiently explain to Hemidactylus, who deprecated
>> the Dunning-Kruger graphs, where I fit into those same graphs as do you.
>>
>> The difference is that I _understand_ what Dunning-Kruger papers explained.
>>
>> It's the same with the catenary where, by now, Alan Baker has probably
>> furiously googled enough to find that it's a well-taught well-discussed
>> term in racing (particularly in motorcycle racing, as you've surmised).
>>
>> Yet, he's likely never heard of it nor, more importantly, since ignorance
>> can be cured, he doesn't understand that it's an extremely important fact.
>>
>> Just as nospam can't stand that he was ignorant that iOS doesn't have any
>> app store apps that graphically show wi-fi signal strength over time,
>> they'll make a childish kindergarten excuse for why they lack knowledge.
>>
>> In nospam's case, that childish excuse is he'll repeatedly claim that apps
>> exist - and yet - when asked to "name just one" - he's never once named it.
>>
>> *How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*
>>
>> It's the same with Hemidactylus claiming the D-K is a weapon when everyone
>> fits into the D-K graphs - yes - everyone - including you and including me.
>>
>> *How do you deal with people that far to the left of the 1st D-K quartile?*
>>
>> The iKooks don't even realize _why_ they're iKooks, badgolferman.
>>
>> But they prove it whenever the only way they can deal with facts that
>> they're ignorant of, like Alan Browne did, is to call people an 'it'.
>>
>> Do you know why Alan Browne calls people dealing with facts an 'it'?
>> I do.
>>
>> HINT: If he negates the person, he feels he's negated all the facts too.
>
> You do yammer on, don't you?
>
I seriously think Bozo Arlen is about to pop an aneurysm given his latest
incoherent broken record ramblings.