*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote

>> Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?
>>
> Wharton organizational psychologist Adam Grant famously popularized it in
> his book *Think Again* so you are not so unique in "knowing" about this
> fictitious representation.

Hi Hemidactylus,

The problem with you iKooks is you get _everything wrong_ in every case.
a. Alan Baker swears he's taken Physics & yet never heard of a catenary
b. Chris swears he has a medical-based Phd & yet ridiculed immunology terms
c. Jolly Roger swears Apple fully patches older releases when Apple doesn't
d. nospam swears graphical signal strength apps exist - and yet they do not
e. You refute the D-K effect & yet you are ignorant of their seminal papers
etc.

OBSERVATION:
*Strange low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks live squarely on Mount Stupid*

To wit...
I never said I was "unique in knowing about Mount Stupid", Hemidactylus.

In fact, everyone _except the iKooks_ seems to know this basic stuff.
Which is my point, after all...

>> <https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>
>>
> Yet in that page you either didn't read or comprehend it is said of the
> graphs in the D-K effect paper: "These graphics bare little resemblance to
> the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence. The online
> images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source,
> then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they
> are all fake."

Again, I know EXACTLY what the graphs look like in the seminal papers,
Hemidactylus - and in fact you disputed that they tested English scores.

It's no longer shocking that you iKooks guess about everything.
It's why you know nothing.

It's why Alan Baker never heard of one of the most fundamental curves based
on the forces of nature (which, let's be clear, work with centrifugal
forces the same way they work with gravitational forces).

BTW, do you see what I just wrote above?
Look at it.

Can you tell I have a vast educational advantage over you, Hemidactylus?
Notice that most of the catenary cites will be about bridges.
But also notice the forces of nature apply to centrifugal forces also.

(Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.)

Do you think Alan Baker caught that the forces work the same in the
horizontal (sidewise) direction as they do in the vertical direction?

*I am sure he doesn't have a clue.*
He is an iKook, after all.

In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.

> Add that to https://youtu.be/kcfRe15I47I?si=wOBDGBaO1SiUx5I6

I wonder if you realize the video proves you're an idiot, Hemidactylus?

Remember when you ridiculed that I said the original studies included
English grammar proficiency? Remember you claimed I didn't read the
studies?

Guess what?
Go to time point 174 seconds in that video please...
<https://youtu.be/kcfRe15I47I?t=174>

*What does it say they tested in the original studies*, Hemidactylus?

HINT: English grammar. I read them. I understood them. You did neither.
DOUBLEHINT: That's _always_ the case with you strange ignorant iKooks.

Moving on to time point 183, do you see the "four group" markings?
<https://youtu.be/kcfRe15I47I?t=183>
Do you now realize why I spoke of the "quartile" lines, Hemidactylus?

You claimed I never read the seminal papers, and yet, why is it that I know
EXACTLY what they tested, and exactly how they grouped the people's score?

None of which show up in the "Mount Stupid" graphs, Hemidactylus.
HINT: You iKooks are so incredibly ignorant you miss every single fact!

That video is titled *The Irony of the Dunning-Kruger Effect*, where it
aptly discusses the iKooks when it start with the quote contrasting the
intelligent people (who are full of doubts) with the iKooks when saying:
*The stupid people are full of confidence*

>> Every iKook lives on "Mount Stupid", which was my reason for bringing
>> up not only the catenary, but almost everything I do on this newsgroup.
>>
> Yet again you wallow ironically within your own ignorance of the DK
> 'effect' which is likely a mere statistical artifact. Mount Stupid is even
> stupider than the DKE yet you use it as a cudgel to little or no polemic
> benefit. Everyone realizes you are a poseur.

First off, "stupider" isn't even a word; but more important, I'm well aware
of the graphs in the Dunning-Kruger studies - which - you may recall - is
why I said many times EVERYONE fits on the graphs - and which - you may
recall - I discussed the various quartiles - as the variance between test
scores and self-bias assessments is what puts people into those areas.

You, of course, belong squarely far to the left of the first quartile line.
As do all iKooks.

>> I proved it about the iKooks. Using the catenary & Dunning Kruger, but
>> since they're all so shockingly uneducated, almost anything works
>> (e.g., Chris claimed to have a PhD in medical sciences and yet he ridiculed
>> the simplest term often used in immunology - which proved he was lying).
>>
> I seriously doubt you have the knowledge of immunology you are feigning
> here for dramatic effect.

Heh heh heh... the video you promoted pegs you perfectly at time point
<https://youtu.be/kcfRe15I47I?t=357>
"Overconfidence among beginners"

To wit:
Q: How much do _you_ know about immunology?

HINT: I wrote a book (unpublished as yet) about Type IV cellular immunity
as it pertains to allergies (specifically poison oak allergies).

DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a
peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic
resistance, too. I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
it out of hand - because you're on Mount Stupid - but the adults in this
newsgroup will believe me because, unlike you, I'm well educated in a
variety of fields, one of which is in the biological sciences.

>> Alan Baker is likewise lying.
>> So be it.
>>
>> Nothing more is needed as everything Alan says is an excuse for his lies.
>> The point was proved the instant he said he was ignorant of what it was.
>>
> As is often said an accusation is often but an admission.

There are three facts I can tell you about Alan Baker which we proved:
a. He claims to support customers' computers and yet he is completely
ignorant about newsreader headers to the point that he's overconfident
in his knowledge as shown by his repeated idiocies proven here:
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.

b. He claims to be knowledgeable in BMWs, and yet, he stated he's owned
them for years and yet he's never once heard of the term bimmer/beemer.
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.

c. He claims to race and to even be a "racing instructor" and yet he can't
fathom how the Newtonian forces of nature which apply to a vertical
catenary apply equally to the centrifugal forces racing around a curve.
In fact, he claims that he's never heard of a catenary, even as claiming
at the same time that he has taken Physics and Calculus classes.
Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
--
What differentiates you low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks from normal
people, Hemidactylus, is each and every iKooks lives atop Mount Stupid.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/pSJ4OnxviWQ>

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> First off, "stupider" isn't even a word;
>
Yeah?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/are-stupider-and-stupidest-real-words
>
[snip]
>
> To wit:
> Q: How much do _you_ know about immunology?
>
> HINT: I wrote a book (unpublished as yet) about Type IV cellular immunity
> as it pertains to allergies (specifically poison oak allergies).
>
To what extent is there non-heritable somatic DNA change in B-lymphocytes
after exposure to antigen (from pathogenic infection or vaccination)? What
is this well known process of adaptive immunity called and what is its
genetic mechanism? Don’t confuse it with somatic recombination, which
itself makes T and B lymphocytes diverse enough to target a plethora of
antigens.

Why is it wrong to say the mRNA based vaccines are a form of genetic
engineering? What do these vaccines lack which prevents conversion into DNA
and integration into the genome of a cell?

Why is the popular narrative that vaccination doesn’t result in minor
genetic changes in very specific regions of immunoglobulin genes wrong? Why
is it also wrong as the conspiracy theorists allege that the mRNA in these
vaccines itself winds up in our DNA like it was a retrovirus?

Have retroviruses been instrumental in the evolution of placentation in
mammals?

Why was ENCODE wrong in its PR dismissal of junk DNA in our genome?
>
> DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a
> peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic
> resistance, too. I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
> it out of hand - because you're on Mount Stupid - but the adults in this
> newsgroup will believe me because, unlike you, I'm well educated in a
> variety of fields, one of which is in the biological sciences.
>
So phages and/or plasmids? An example of evolutionary gene flow, subset
horizontal gene transfer? If you are not blowing smoke up my ass I will
give you credit for that. But that’s a HUGE threshold for you to surmount
because I am not easily bullshitted on immunology or evolutionary biology.

*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> First off, "stupider" isn't even a word;
>>
> Yeah?
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/are-stupider-and-stupidest-real-words
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> To wit:
>> Q: How much do _you_ know about immunology?
>>
>> HINT: I wrote a book (unpublished as yet) about Type IV cellular immunity
>> as it pertains to allergies (specifically poison oak allergies).
>>
> To what extent is there non-heritable somatic DNA change in B-lymphocytes
> after exposure to antigen (from pathogenic infection or vaccination)? What
> is this well known process of adaptive immunity called and what is its
> genetic mechanism? Don’t confuse it with somatic recombination, which
> itself makes T and B lymphocytes diverse enough to target a plethora of
> antigens.
>
> Why is it wrong to say the mRNA based vaccines are a form of genetic
> engineering? What do these vaccines lack which prevents conversion into DNA
> and integration into the genome of a cell?
>
> Why is the popular narrative that vaccination doesn’t result in minor
> genetic changes in very specific regions of immunoglobulin genes wrong? Why
> is it also wrong as the conspiracy theorists allege that the mRNA in these
> vaccines itself winds up in our DNA like it was a retrovirus?
>
> Have retroviruses been instrumental in the evolution of placentation in
> mammals?
>
> Why was ENCODE wrong in its PR dismissal of junk DNA in our genome?
>>
>> DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a
>> peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic
>> resistance, too. I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
>> it out of hand - because you're on Mount Stupid - but the adults in this
>> newsgroup will believe me because, unlike you, I'm well educated in a
>> variety of fields, one of which is in the biological sciences.
>>
> So phages and/or plasmids? An example of evolutionary gene flow, subset
> horizontal gene transfer? If you are not blowing smoke up my ass I will
> give you credit for that. But that’s a HUGE threshold for you to surmount
> because I am not easily bullshitted on immunology or evolutionary biology.
>

Yeah, I agree. You sure told him.

Next, lets see how smart he is on quantum physics. I bet you're
a genius, right?

He'll still be attacking iKooks, while you destroy him with
your brilliance.

On 2023-12-24 12:17, Wally J wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?
>>>
>> Wharton organizational psychologist Adam Grant famously popularized it in
>> his book *Think Again* so you are not so unique in "knowing" about this
>> fictitious representation.
>
> Hi Hemidactylus,
>
> The problem with you iKooks is you get _everything wrong_ in every case.
> a. Alan Baker swears he's taken Physics & yet never heard of a catenary

That is simply a lie as I never once said anything like that.

> b. Chris swears he has a medical-based Phd & yet ridiculed immunology terms
> c. Jolly Roger swears Apple fully patches older releases when Apple doesn't
> d. nospam swears graphical signal strength apps exist - and yet they do not
> e. You refute the D-K effect & yet you are ignorant of their seminal papers
> etc.
>
> OBSERVATION:
> *Strange low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks live squarely on Mount Stupid*
>
> To wit...
> I never said I was "unique in knowing about Mount Stupid", Hemidactylus.
>
> In fact, everyone _except the iKooks_ seems to know this basic stuff.
> Which is my point, after all...
>
>>> <https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>
>>>
>> Yet in that page you either didn't read or comprehend it is said of the
>> graphs in the D-K effect paper: "These graphics bare little resemblance to
>> the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence. The online
>> images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source,
>> then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they
>> are all fake."
>
> Again, I know EXACTLY what the graphs look like in the seminal papers,
> Hemidactylus - and in fact you disputed that they tested English scores.
>
> It's no longer shocking that you iKooks guess about everything.
> It's why you know nothing.
>
> It's why Alan Baker never heard of one of the most fundamental curves based
> on the forces of nature (which, let's be clear, work with centrifugal
> forces the same way they work with gravitational forces).
>
> BTW, do you see what I just wrote above?
> Look at it.
>
> Can you tell I have a vast educational advantage over you, Hemidactylus?
> Notice that most of the catenary cites will be about bridges.
> But also notice the forces of nature apply to centrifugal forces also.
>
> (Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.)
>
> Do you think Alan Baker caught that the forces work the same in the
> horizontal (sidewise) direction as they do in the vertical direction?

Forces work the same in general...

....but the specifics are very different.

>
> *I am sure he doesn't have a clue.*
> He is an iKook, after all.
>
> In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
> force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.

I know precisely what centrifugal force is an more importantly
centriPETAL force.

> There are three facts I can tell you about Alan Baker which we proved:
> a. He claims to support customers' computers and yet he is completely
> ignorant about newsreader headers to the point that he's overconfident
> in his knowledge as shown by his repeated idiocies proven here:
> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
> Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.

Nope. That is not proven.

>
> b. He claims to be knowledgeable in BMWs, and yet, he stated he's owned
> them for years and yet he's never once heard of the term bimmer/beemer.
> Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.

Nope. That's not what I claimed.

>
> c. He claims to race and to even be a "racing instructor" and yet he can't
> fathom how the Newtonian forces of nature which apply to a vertical
> catenary apply equally to the centrifugal forces racing around a curve.
> In fact, he claims that he's never heard of a catenary, even as claiming
> at the same time that he has taken Physics and Calculus classes.
> Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.

I've never claimed not to have heard of a catenary, and I have taken
both physics and calculus (and in standard English grammar, they
shouldn't be capitalized).

What I claimed (because it is true) is that no instructor I've spoken
with as a student or as a colleague has ever mentioned the catenary in
relation to racing.

:-)

Would someone please reply so we can laugh at Arlen then replying only
after removing every word I said?

Thanks!

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-24 12:17, Wally J wrote:
>> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
>>
>>>> Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?
>>>>
>>> Wharton organizational psychologist Adam Grant famously popularized it in
>>> his book *Think Again* so you are not so unique in "knowing" about this
>>> fictitious representation.
>>
>> Hi Hemidactylus,
>>
>> The problem with you iKooks is you get _everything wrong_ in every case.
>> a. Alan Baker swears he's taken Physics & yet never heard of a catenary
>
> That is simply a lie as I never once said anything like that.
>
>> b. Chris swears he has a medical-based Phd & yet ridiculed immunology terms
>> c. Jolly Roger swears Apple fully patches older releases when Apple doesn't
>> d. nospam swears graphical signal strength apps exist - and yet they do not
>> e. You refute the D-K effect & yet you are ignorant of their seminal papers
>> etc.
>>
>> OBSERVATION:
>> *Strange low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks live squarely on Mount Stupid*
>>
>> To wit...
>> I never said I was "unique in knowing about Mount Stupid", Hemidactylus.
>>
>> In fact, everyone _except the iKooks_ seems to know this basic stuff.
>> Which is my point, after all...
>>
>>>> <https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>
>>>>
>>> Yet in that page you either didn't read or comprehend it is said of the
>>> graphs in the D-K effect paper: "These graphics bare little resemblance to
>>> the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence. The online
>>> images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source,
>>> then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they
>>> are all fake."
>>
>> Again, I know EXACTLY what the graphs look like in the seminal papers,
>> Hemidactylus - and in fact you disputed that they tested English scores.
>>
>> It's no longer shocking that you iKooks guess about everything.
>> It's why you know nothing.
>>
>> It's why Alan Baker never heard of one of the most fundamental curves based
>> on the forces of nature (which, let's be clear, work with centrifugal
>> forces the same way they work with gravitational forces).
>>
>> BTW, do you see what I just wrote above?
>> Look at it.
>>
>> Can you tell I have a vast educational advantage over you, Hemidactylus?
>> Notice that most of the catenary cites will be about bridges.
>> But also notice the forces of nature apply to centrifugal forces also.
>>
>> (Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.)
>>
>> Do you think Alan Baker caught that the forces work the same in the
>> horizontal (sidewise) direction as they do in the vertical direction?
>
> Forces work the same in general...
>
> ...but the specifics are very different.
>
>>
>> *I am sure he doesn't have a clue.*
>> He is an iKook, after all.
>>
>> In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
>> force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.
>
> I know precisely what centrifugal force is an more importantly
> centriPETAL force.
>
>> There are three facts I can tell you about Alan Baker which we proved:
>> a. He claims to support customers' computers and yet he is completely
>> ignorant about newsreader headers to the point that he's overconfident
>> in his knowledge as shown by his repeated idiocies proven here:
>> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
>> Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
>
> Nope. That is not proven.
>
>>
>> b. He claims to be knowledgeable in BMWs, and yet, he stated he's owned
>> them for years and yet he's never once heard of the term bimmer/beemer.
>> Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
>
> Nope. That's not what I claimed.
>
>>
>> c. He claims to race and to even be a "racing instructor" and yet he can't
>> fathom how the Newtonian forces of nature which apply to a vertical
>> catenary apply equally to the centrifugal forces racing around a curve.
>> In fact, he claims that he's never heard of a catenary, even as claiming
>> at the same time that he has taken Physics and Calculus classes.
>> Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
>
> I've never claimed not to have heard of a catenary, and I have taken
> both physics and calculus (and in standard English grammar, they
> shouldn't be capitalized).
>
> What I claimed (because it is true) is that no instructor I've spoken
> with as a student or as a colleague has ever mentioned the catenary in
> relation to racing.
>
> :-)
>
> Would someone please reply so we can laugh at Arlen then replying only
> after removing every word I said?
>
> Thanks!
>
Your wish is my command.

On 2023-12-24, Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I agree. You sure told him.
>
> Next, lets see how smart he is on quantum physics. I bet you're
> a genius, right?
>
> He'll still be attacking iKooks, while you destroy him with
> your brilliance.

BoTh SiDeS, y'AlL...

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

On 2023-12-24 15:13, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-24 12:17, Wally J wrote:
>>> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>>>> Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?
>>>>>
>>>> Wharton organizational psychologist Adam Grant famously popularized it in
>>>> his book *Think Again* so you are not so unique in "knowing" about this
>>>> fictitious representation.
>>>
>>> Hi Hemidactylus,
>>>
>>> The problem with you iKooks is you get _everything wrong_ in every case.
>>> a. Alan Baker swears he's taken Physics & yet never heard of a catenary
>>
>> That is simply a lie as I never once said anything like that.
>>
>>> b. Chris swears he has a medical-based Phd & yet ridiculed immunology terms
>>> c. Jolly Roger swears Apple fully patches older releases when Apple doesn't
>>> d. nospam swears graphical signal strength apps exist - and yet they do not
>>> e. You refute the D-K effect & yet you are ignorant of their seminal papers
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> OBSERVATION:
>>> *Strange low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks live squarely on Mount Stupid*
>>>
>>> To wit...
>>> I never said I was "unique in knowing about Mount Stupid", Hemidactylus.
>>>
>>> In fact, everyone _except the iKooks_ seems to know this basic stuff.
>>> Which is my point, after all...
>>>
>>>>> <https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>
>>>>>
>>>> Yet in that page you either didn't read or comprehend it is said of the
>>>> graphs in the D-K effect paper: "These graphics bare little resemblance to
>>>> the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence. The online
>>>> images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source,
>>>> then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they
>>>> are all fake."
>>>
>>> Again, I know EXACTLY what the graphs look like in the seminal papers,
>>> Hemidactylus - and in fact you disputed that they tested English scores.
>>>
>>> It's no longer shocking that you iKooks guess about everything.
>>> It's why you know nothing.
>>>
>>> It's why Alan Baker never heard of one of the most fundamental curves based
>>> on the forces of nature (which, let's be clear, work with centrifugal
>>> forces the same way they work with gravitational forces).
>>>
>>> BTW, do you see what I just wrote above?
>>> Look at it.
>>>
>>> Can you tell I have a vast educational advantage over you, Hemidactylus?
>>> Notice that most of the catenary cites will be about bridges.
>>> But also notice the forces of nature apply to centrifugal forces also.
>>>
>>> (Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.)
>>>
>>> Do you think Alan Baker caught that the forces work the same in the
>>> horizontal (sidewise) direction as they do in the vertical direction?
>>
>> Forces work the same in general...
>>
>> ...but the specifics are very different.
>>
>>>
>>> *I am sure he doesn't have a clue.*
>>> He is an iKook, after all.
>>>
>>> In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
>>> force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.
>>
>> I know precisely what centrifugal force is an more importantly
>> centriPETAL force.
>>
>>> There are three facts I can tell you about Alan Baker which we proved:
>>> a. He claims to support customers' computers and yet he is completely
>>> ignorant about newsreader headers to the point that he's overconfident
>>> in his knowledge as shown by his repeated idiocies proven here:
>>> <https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>
>>> Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
>>
>> Nope. That is not proven.
>>
>>>
>>> b. He claims to be knowledgeable in BMWs, and yet, he stated he's owned
>>> them for years and yet he's never once heard of the term bimmer/beemer.
>>> Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
>>
>> Nope. That's not what I claimed.
>>
>>>
>>> c. He claims to race and to even be a "racing instructor" and yet he can't
>>> fathom how the Newtonian forces of nature which apply to a vertical
>>> catenary apply equally to the centrifugal forces racing around a curve.
>>> In fact, he claims that he's never heard of a catenary, even as claiming
>>> at the same time that he has taken Physics and Calculus classes.
>>> Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Nobody. Unless you live on Mount Stupid.
>>
>> I've never claimed not to have heard of a catenary, and I have taken
>> both physics and calculus (and in standard English grammar, they
>> shouldn't be capitalized).
>>
>> What I claimed (because it is true) is that no instructor I've spoken
>> with as a student or as a colleague has ever mentioned the catenary in
>> relation to racing.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Would someone please reply so we can laugh at Arlen then replying only
>> after removing every word I said?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
> Your wish is my command.
>

You're a gentleman (or gentlelady), sir (or madam)!

;-)

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?
>>>
>> Wharton organizational psychologist Adam Grant famously popularized it in
>> his book *Think Again* so you are not so unique in "knowing" about this
>> fictitious representation.
>
> Hi Hemidactylus,
>
> The problem with you iKooks is you get _everything wrong_ in every case.
> a. Alan Baker swears he's taken Physics & yet never heard of a catenary
> b. Chris swears he has a medical-based Phd & yet ridiculed immunology terms
> c. Jolly Roger swears Apple fully patches older releases when Apple doesn't
> d. nospam swears graphical signal strength apps exist - and yet they do not
> e. You refute the D-K effect & yet you are ignorant of their seminal papers
> etc.
>
> OBSERVATION:
> *Strange low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks live squarely on Mount Stupid*
>
> To wit...
> I never said I was "unique in knowing about Mount Stupid", Hemidactylus.
>
> In fact, everyone _except the iKooks_ seems to know this basic stuff.
> Which is my point, after all...
>
>>> <https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>
>>>
>> Yet in that page you either didn't read or comprehend it is said of the
>> graphs in the D-K effect paper: "These graphics bare little resemblance to
>> the ones found online - having no "mount stupid" in evidence. The online
>> images vary widely in their presentation, so if there is a primary source,
>> then it would be good to know which one is the correct graphic, or if they
>> are all fake."
>
> Again, I know EXACTLY what the graphs look like in the seminal papers,
> Hemidactylus - and in fact you disputed that they tested English scores.
>
> It's no longer shocking that you iKooks guess about everything.
> It's why you know nothing.
>
> It's why Alan Baker never heard of one of the most fundamental curves based
> on the forces of nature (which, let's be clear, work with centrifugal
> forces the same way they work with gravitational forces).
>
> BTW, do you see what I just wrote above?
> Look at it.
>
> Can you tell I have a vast educational advantage over you, Hemidactylus?
> Notice that most of the catenary cites will be about bridges.
> But also notice the forces of nature apply to centrifugal forces also.
>
> (Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.)
>
> Do you think Alan Baker caught that the forces work the same in the
> horizontal (sidewise) direction as they do in the vertical direction?
>
> *I am sure he doesn't have a clue.*
> He is an iKook, after all.
>
> In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
> force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.
>
>
>> Add that to https://youtu.be/kcfRe15I47I?si=wOBDGBaO1SiUx5I6
>
> I wonder if you realize the video proves you're an idiot, Hemidactylus?
>
> Remember when you ridiculed that I said the original studies included
> English grammar proficiency? Remember you claimed I didn't read the
> studies?
>
> Guess what?
> Go to time point 174 seconds in that video please...
> <https://youtu.be/kcfRe15I47I?t=174>
>
> *What does it say they tested in the original studies*, Hemidactylus?
>
> HINT: English grammar. I read them. I understood them. You did neither.
> DOUBLEHINT: That's _always_ the case with you strange ignorant iKooks.
>
> Moving on to time point 183, do you see the "four group" markings?
> <https://youtu.be/kcfRe15I47I?t=183>
> Do you now realize why I spoke of the "quartile" lines, Hemidactylus?
>
> You claimed I never read the seminal papers, and yet, why is it that I know
> EXACTLY what they tested, and exactly how they grouped the people's score?
>
> None of which show up in the "Mount Stupid" graphs, Hemidactylus.
> HINT: You iKooks are so incredibly ignorant you miss every single fact!
>
> That video is titled *The Irony of the Dunning-Kruger Effect*, where it
> aptly discusses the iKooks when it start with the quote contrasting the
> intelligent people (who are full of doubts) with the iKooks when saying:
> *The stupid people are full of confidence*
>
>>> Every iKook lives on "Mount Stupid", which was my reason for bringing
>>> up not only the catenary, but almost everything I do on this newsgroup.
>>>
>> Yet again you wallow ironically within your own ignorance of the DK
>> 'effect' which is likely a mere statistical artifact. Mount Stupid is even
>> stupider than the DKE yet you use it as a cudgel to little or no polemic
>> benefit. Everyone realizes you are a poseur.
>
> First off, "stupider" isn't even a word; but more important, I'm well aware
> of the graphs in the Dunning-Kruger studies - which - you may recall - is
> why I said many times EVERYONE fits on the graphs - and which - you may
> recall - I discussed the various quartiles - as the variance between test
> scores and self-bias assessments is what puts people into those areas.
>
> You, of course, belong squarely far to the left of the first quartile line.
> As do all iKooks.
>
>>> I proved it about the iKooks. Using the catenary & Dunning Kruger, but
>>> since they're all so shockingly uneducated, almost anything works
>>> (e.g., Chris claimed to have a PhD in medical sciences

That's not what I stated.

> and yet he ridiculed
>>> the simplest term often used in immunology - which proved he was lying).

You used it incorrectly which led to confusion. There was no ridiculing.
You're simply trying to play the victim.

>> I seriously doubt you have the knowledge of immunology you are feigning
>> here for dramatic effect.
>
> Heh heh heh... the video you promoted pegs you perfectly at time point
> <https://youtu.be/kcfRe15I47I?t=357>
> "Overconfidence among beginners"
>
> To wit:
> Q: How much do _you_ know about immunology?
>
> HINT: I wrote a book (unpublished as yet) about Type IV cellular immunity
> as it pertains to allergies (specifically poison oak allergies).

Everyone has written an unpublished book. Let us know once it's published.

I'm not an immunologist, but even to me that sounds like a very niche topic
to be writing a book about.

> DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a
> peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic
> resistance, too.

By golly! A *contributing* author?! That's amazing. We are honoured to be
in the presence of such greatness...

Who was the senior author?

> I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
> it out of hand

So even you aren't confident on its significance.

BTW horizontal gene transfer (or inheritance) is quite well established in
the microbiology literature. Not just for antibiotic resistance.

> - because you're on Mount Stupid - but the adults in this
> newsgroup will believe me because, unlike you, I'm well educated in a
> variety of fields, one of which is in the biological sciences.

You *think* you're well educated. Posting pictures of books is not an
education.

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote

>>> In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
>>> force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.
>>
>> I know precisely what centrifugal force is an more importantly
>> centriPETAL force.

Kudos to Alan Baker for actually knowing the difference between centripetal
and centrifugal forces, where that's exactly why I said, and I quote:
"(Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.)"

While gravity isn't a force either, we're using Newtonian descriptions, as
once we get into the true nature of gravity, it will knock your socks off.

The point was that all the furious googling in the world won't help you if
you don't understand that the uniform forces of nature that work on a
catenary in the vertical direction cause it to curve the way it does - just
as the uniform forces of angular (mass:energy) movement:momentum (yes, some
of which are fictitious) that work on a vehicle moving horizontally around
a curve also form a catenary when they're similarly uniform.

Now isn't that interesting!

BTW, with respect to quantum mechanics, that will blow your socks off,
e.g., gravity doesn't exist as a force - just as a virus isn't living.

People have a hard time with both those concepts, one from biology and the
other from physics - both of which are subject to interpretation - but if
you don't _understand_ the fundamental concepts - you can't dispute them.

Notice that Hemidactylus disputed the D-K conclusions, claiming he read the
papers, and yet he ridiculed the fact I said they studied English Grammar
proficiency in the seminal papers and that they grouped results into
quartiles - both of which came up in Hemidactylus' own YouTube cite (which,
clearly, he didn't watch as he wouldn't have cited it had he known that).

The iKooks don't have the capacity to understand even the simplest of
complexities (yes, I know) so what they do their whole lives, is fake it.

In doing so, they fabricate all sorts of absurdly preposterous claims,
particularly about Apple products such that Apple newsgroups devolve into a
childish cesspool of assertions and denials (and outright fabrications).

Which was my point about the iKooks such that...
a. Jolly Roger disputes how Apple patches releases - and yet - his claims
defy all logic (and they directly contradict Apple's own policies).
b. Hemidactylus disputes how I characterized D-K - and yet - his claims
that they didn't test grammar was preposterous - because they did.
c. nospam disputes there are no graphical wi-fi debuggers (and scores of
other functionalities) and yet he can NEVER come up with the app he
claims exists on the Apple App Store. Hint: It doesn't exist.

*How do you meaningfully converse with people who live on Mount Stupid?*
You can't.

Which is my point.

In summary, for decades, this "Apple vs Whatever" conversation has been
taking place - and yet - the ridiculous nature of the discussion is simply
because iKooks are completely unable to fathom the complexities involved.
--
BTW, did you ever notice how I make fun of the iKooks' lack of English
grammar? There's a reason which they can't comprehend - which is that if
you can't figure out the simplest of rules (such as who versus whom) - how
can you understand complex ones? HINT: You can't.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

> I'm not an immunologist, but even to me that sounds like a very niche topic
> to be writing a book about.

Hi Chris,
I have a good memory, even after the recent spate of operations, where you
ridiculed the use of "vehicle" in immunology - and yes - you RIDICULED it.

If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites, so let's just
accept that you do not have any training in immunology & leave it at that.

>> DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a
>> peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic
>> resistance, too.
>
> By golly! A *contributing* author?! That's amazing. We are honoured to be
> in the presence of such greatness...
>
> Who was the senior author?

First off, I was a lowly grad student, and secondly, all you have to do to
be a "contributing author" to such peer-reviewed papers is do some of the
research - so you again ridiculing it isn't warranted as my point was only
that I have degrees in stuff that you iKooks don't and yet you iKooks
ridicule things such as a catenary & D-K quartiles & immunology terms.

My point is simply that you're all squarely to the west of Mount Stupid.
You're so stupid - you don't even realize how stupid you are.

That's the nicest way I can put it, at least the nicest way I can think of.
>> I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
>> it out of hand
>
> So even you aren't confident on its significance.

One scientific paper? The significance? Not much. However it was seminal.

We studied the organisms and we studied their reactions and we surmised how
what we observed could possibly have happened given the organisms were
never exposed to what they were found to be immune to and we looked at
patterns and we made assessments based on the facts as we knew them - which
- turns out - a decade later - we were vindicated in all our premises.

Science progresses. And that was before I changed fields completely.

That was in the throes of the Vietnam War era by the way, and the science
of immunology has progressed greatly since then - but even then it was
immensely complex.

If you iKooks can't figure out something as simple as whether or not you
can name an app that does Wi-Fi graphical signal strength debugging, how on
earth are you iKooks going to be able to figure out something like that?

Unfortunately, most of the population has no clue about immunology (they
think every vaccine is the same as the flu vaccine) - so they have no grasp
of the immense differences this covid situation was for us (by the way, we
studied the family of viruses which cause Covid (the family being known
since at least the sixties), where even then a mere handful of
Coronaviridae were responsible for something like 1/3 of all colds while
the other two thirds required hundreds upon hundreds of other viruses).

That's how formidable the Coronaviridae are in terms of attaching to
mucosal cells in the lungs (and elsewhere - but particularly the lungs).

> BTW horizontal gene transfer (or inheritance) is quite well established in
> the microbiology literature. Not just for antibiotic resistance.

You're surprisingly prescient, Chris, where I'm both a scientist and an
engineer so I will agree with anyone if they make a logically sensible
assessment of facts. Kudos to you for _understanding_ the basics.

I'm impressed. I truly did not think you had it in you, Chris.
I'm duly shocked. In a good way.

Note: I'm also shocked when nospam fabricates there are many apps, such as
mock location apps or on-device system-wide firewalls, for iOS when he
can't ever name them - but that shock is, by way of contrast, in a bad way.

>> - because you're on Mount Stupid - but the adults in this
>> newsgroup will believe me because, unlike you, I'm well educated in a
>> variety of fields, one of which is in the biological sciences.
>
> You *think* you're well educated. Posting pictures of books is not an
> education.

There you go, Chris. For a second you had me respecting you.

But then, you go on the classic iKook tangent thinking that a book is an
education, when you missed the entire point (much like Alan Browne misses
the point that he's logging into the very walled garden he claims doesn't
exist).

Just as Alan Browne constantly ridicules the existence of the walled
garden, even as _everything_ he loves about iOS doesn't work without it...

When you ridicule textbooks, it hints of you having never attended college.
--
Once in a while, an iKook says something that an actual adult would say;
and then, in the next sentence, they destroy any respect that they gained.

On 2023-12-24 19:49, Wally J wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
>
>>>> In fact, this "expert teacher of racing" has no idea what a centrifugal
>>>> force is, and certainly any true racing instructor would know of it.
>>>
>>> I know precisely what centrifugal force is an more importantly
>>> centriPETAL force.
>
> Kudos to Alan Baker for actually knowing the difference between centripetal
> and centrifugal forces, where that's exactly why I said, and I quote:
> "(Let's not get into the "fictitious forces" argument for the time being.)"

I learned it in high school...

>
> While gravity isn't a force either, we're using Newtonian descriptions, as
> once we get into the true nature of gravity, it will knock your socks off.

....and gravity is certainly a force. The attraction between objects can
easily be measured.

>
> The point was that all the furious googling in the world won't help you if
> you don't understand that the uniform forces of nature that work on a
> catenary in the vertical direction cause it to curve the way it does - just
> as the uniform forces of angular (mass:energy) movement:momentum (yes, some
> of which are fictitious) that work on a vehicle moving horizontally around
> a curve also form a catenary when they're similarly uniform.

No, they do not. Because in a catenary, all the external forces act
vertically, but there are forces along the chain or rope as well.

When in a curve in a car (or motorcycle) there is no such force along
the line.

I can show you why in the first phase of a corner (from the time you
have slowed the car in a straight line to the speed required to
negotiate the corner successfully), when braking and steering into the
corner until you reach the point where the forces are purely lateral,
the curve described MUST be a parabola.

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> I'm not an immunologist, but even to me that sounds like a very niche topic
>> to be writing a book about.
>
> Hi Chris,
> I have a good memory, even after the recent spate of operations, where you
> ridiculed the use of "vehicle" in immunology - and yes - you RIDICULED it.
>
> If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,

I disagree.

> so let's just
> accept that you do not have any training in immunology & leave it at that.
>
>>> DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a
>>> peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic
>>> resistance, too.
>>
>> By golly! A *contributing* author?! That's amazing. We are honoured to be
>> in the presence of such greatness...
>>
>> Who was the senior author?
>
> First off, I was a lowly grad student, and secondly, all you have to do to
> be a "contributing author" to such peer-reviewed papers is do some of the
> research

And what did you do that warrants you being able to still call yourself an
immunologist decades later?

I did my bachelors and PhD in Chemistry I don't call myself a chemist these
days. I lead research projects in other fields.

> - so you again ridiculing it isn't warranted as my point was only
> that I have degrees

That's what you claim yet won't directly evidence. The only thing others
can go on is what you say, which is worthless. Especially when you
constantly attack the messengers and name call.

> in stuff that you iKooks don't and yet you iKooks
> ridicule things such as a catenary & D-K quartiles & immunology terms.

Name calling isn't at all ridiculouS, of course.

The pattern, which you can't see of course, is you using terms incorrectly
and then get all arsey when those who actually know stuff try to correct
you.

> My point is simply that you're all squarely to the west of Mount Stupid.
> You're so stupid - you don't even realize how stupid you are.
>
> That's the nicest way I can put it, at least the nicest way I can think of.

What's most funny regarding all this DK nonsense is you don't recognise how
relevant it is to you. The more you claim you're an expert the more you
come across as a know-it-all who actually knows little.

>>> I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
>>> it out of hand
>>
>> So even you aren't confident on its significance.
>
> One scientific paper? The significance? Not much. However it was seminal.

It can't be seminal if it wasn't very significant. Unless it's about
semen...

> We studied the organisms and we studied their reactions and we surmised how
> what we observed could possibly have happened given the organisms were
> never exposed to what they were found to be immune to and we looked at
> patterns and we made assessments based on the facts as we knew them - which
> - turns out - a decade later - we were vindicated in all our premises.

You could easily tell us who the senior author was. They likely published
dozens if not hundreds of papers which wouldn't divulge anything we don't
already know.

If any of this true, I suspect you didn't travel far so would have likely
been at UCSF or UCSD.

>
> When you ridicule textbooks, it hints of you having never attended college.

I'm not ridiculing books. I'm ridiculing you for using photos of books as
evidence of your college degrees. The fact you feel the need to even do
this speaks volumes about your fragile ego.

You're right, I never attended college. I went straight to university from
school.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

>> I have a good memory, even after the recent spate of operations, where you
>> ridiculed the use of "vehicle" in immunology - and yes - you RIDICULED it.
>>
>> If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,
>
> I disagree.

Hi Chris,

This stuff is how I know you iKooks all have a substandard below-normal IQ.
a. Your belief systems are all completely imaginary
b. Hence, facts threaten everything you believe in
c. So you simply resort to kindergarten blind denials that facts can exist

All you iKooks ever do (besides defending Apple to the death, no matter
what), is deny all facts about anything that you simply do not like.

By denying facts, in your mind, they go away (much like the Russians do,
but more to the point, it's why Alan Browne claims he's never seen the
walled garden that, literally, he logs into every day of his living life).

> The pattern, which you can't see of course, is you using terms incorrectly
> and then get all arsey when those who actually know stuff try to correct
> you.

Usenet is water under the bridge to me, where I respond only to what people
say; I don't care who says it - if it makes sense - I will agree with it.

I never disagree with a sentient logical statement, Chris, no matter whom
it comes from. It could come from the Devil himself, and if it makes sense,
I'd agree with it.

You said at one point that Mount Stupid isn't on the Dunning-Kruger graphs,
and I only belatedly understood why you said that - and once I did - I
agreed with you - but that just means I was using off-the-cuff terminology
as I knew full well the quartile graphs that were in the seminal papers.

So I give you full credit for pointing that out (but no credit for getting
the reason wrong - as it's clear by now I read and understood the papers).

I have to give you credit Chris, much as I give Alan Baker credit when his
quoted text shows something correctly, that you once caught a decimal-place
error in my off-the-cuff statements (about Covid deaths in children).

I have a good memory Chris - even after a spate of life-saving operations.
Anyone who can earn higher degrees in the sciences and engineering MUST
have a good memory - or they wouldn't be able to pass any of the exams.

You do NOT have a good memory Chris as you don't remember ridiculing the
use of "vehicle" (making jokes about cars) in immunology when it's a common
term of anyone who took courses in immunology (which I have taken).

Hell... I even have my immunology textbooks, which you uneducated iKooks
ridicule because you hate that none of you iKooks even has an undergrad
degree (neither Alan Baker nor Jolly Roger could have even a high school
diploma, Chris). Nobody with their IQs would.

Those are accurate observations of fact.

>> First off, I was a lowly grad student, and secondly, all you have to do to
>> be a "contributing author" to such peer-reviewed papers is do some of the
>> research
>
> And what did you do that warrants you being able to still call yourself an
> immunologist decades later?

Again, this is how I know all you uneducated iKooks have a substandard IQ.
I never once said I was an immunologist. Not then. Not now.
Yet your "Mount Stupid" iKook brain simply makes that up out of nothing.

> I did my bachelors and PhD in Chemistry I don't call myself a chemist these
> days. I lead research projects in other fields.

You did not. You are a liar. You're too stupid to have a PhD in anything,
let along a bachelors degree Chris. Sorry. But you can't.

What's the reason that water is such a good solvent, Chris?
Do you know?

HINT: You're furiously googling (much as Alan Baker would), but that's an
easy one to find in Google searches - so it's an easy one for you too.

Let's try what this means '1s22s22p6' (offhand I'm pretty sure that's
correct) as some things in chemistry (such as .0821) stick in your mind
because you use them so often.

What is the significance of those two sets of things above to chemistry?
Hint: They're both huge so if you have to google, you don't know chemistry.

>> - so you again ridiculing it isn't warranted as my point was only
>> that I have degrees
>
> That's what you claim yet won't directly evidence. The only thing others
> can go on is what you say, which is worthless. Especially when you
> constantly attack the messengers and name call.

You think I'm making it up because that's what _you_ do, Chris.
All you ignorant low-IQ iKooks make _everything_ up, Chris.
It's why you live west of Mount Stupid on the Dunning-Kruger extrapolation.

>> in stuff that you iKooks don't and yet you iKooks
>> ridicule things such as a catenary & D-K quartiles & immunology terms.
>
> Name calling isn't at all ridiculouS, of course.

Telling you that you are west of Mount Stupid is an accurate assessment.
Telling you that denying all facts you don't like is childish is an
accurate assessment. Telling you that you're a liar is an accurate
assessment.

You don't hear me saying that about Ant, do you Chris?
I don't say it about badgolferman, do I Chris?

And yet, I say it about Steve (being a liar) and yet I don't call him an
iKook. Doesn't it ever occur to you the _reason_ I call you an iKook...

...Is because you are...

Remember, iKooks are a special kind of person west of Mount Stupid.

>> My point is simply that you're all squarely to the west of Mount Stupid.
>> You're so stupid - you don't even realize how stupid you are.
>>
>> That's the nicest way I can put it, at least the nicest way I can think of.
>
> What's most funny regarding all this DK nonsense is you don't recognise how
> relevant it is to you. The more you claim you're an expert the more you
> come across as a know-it-all who actually knows little.

I never once said I was an expert in anything (as far as I recall), Chris,
where you just _think_ I'm an expert because I know so much more than you
do.

Likewise, Alan Baker _claims_ to be an expert but he doesn't know the first
thing about things he claims to be an expert in - where I only know them
because I have a grasp of detail (e.g., what a BMW is called in racing
circuits) that Alan Baker lacks. But let's be clear here, Chris - showing
that I know more than Alan Baker does makes me no expert at all Chris.

All it means is I got past kindergarten, Chris.
Seriously.

You mistake me poking fun at the ignorant iKooks for me claiming I'm an
expert. My goal isn't to claim that and in many (many!) cases I expressly
disavow being an expert because I'm too well educated to make that claim.

Only people to the left of Mount Stupid claim to be experts (like Alan
Baker for example) when they're actually incredibly ignorant people.

HINT: Who on earth is _that_ stupid? Unless they live on Mount Stupid.
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/EiNl6hyMBDo/>

>>>> I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
>>>> it out of hand
>>>
>>> So even you aren't confident on its significance.
>>
>> One scientific paper? The significance? Not much. However it was seminal.
>
> It can't be seminal if it wasn't very significant. Unless it's about
> semen...

That's true actually. What I meant in the casual conversation was that it
was prescient, more so than seminal. Thanks for clarifying as I agree with
you.

Again (and again) and again, I will agree with anyone (hell, even nospam)
if that person makes a statement that makes sense logically.

When Alan Baker claims that he's an expert and yet he knows nothing about
the subject, that doesn't make sense.

When Steve claims that T-Mobile has no signal where it does, that doesn't
make sense (especially as Steve lied for years about the FCC data).

When Jolly Roger claims Apple fully patches older releases when even Apple
expressly says they do NOT do that - what JR thinks doesn't make sense.

When nospam constantly fabricates imaginary apps in the app store that
simply don't exist - that doesn't make sense.

When Snit claims this video shows an iOS app that can graphically show
Wi-Fi signal strength over time for all nearby access points, that doesn't
make sense (although all the ignorant iKooks believed it, Chris).
<https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo> iKooks can't even see the fatal flaw!
>> We studied the organisms and we studied their reactions and we surmised how
>> what we observed could possibly have happened given the organisms were
>> never exposed to what they were found to be immune to and we looked at
>> patterns and we made assessments based on the facts as we knew them - which
>> - turns out - a decade later - we were vindicated in all our premises.
>
> You could easily tell us who the senior author was. They likely published
> dozens if not hundreds of papers which wouldn't divulge anything we don't
> already know.
>
> If any of this true, I suspect you didn't travel far so would have likely
> been at UCSF or UCSD.

On 2023-12-28 08:20, Wally J wrote:
>> What's most funny regarding all this DK nonsense is you don't recognise how
>> relevant it is to you. The more you claim you're an expert the more you
>> come across as a know-it-all who actually knows little.
> I never once said I was an expert in anything (as far as I recall), Chris,
> where you just_think_ I'm an expert because I know so much more than you
> do.
>
> Likewise, Alan Baker_claims_ to be an expert but he doesn't know the first
> thing about things he claims to be an expert in - where I only know them
> because I have a grasp of detail (e.g., what a BMW is called in racing
> circuits) that Alan Baker lacks. But let's be clear here, Chris - showing
> that I know more than Alan Baker does makes me no expert at all Chris.

I'm starting to understand your psyche, Arlen.

You simply can't admit you're wrong.

And it's HILARIOUS!

Chris wrote:
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> I'm not an immunologist, but even to me that sounds like a very niche topic
>>> to be writing a book about.
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>> I have a good memory, even after the recent spate of operations, where you
>> ridiculed the use of "vehicle" in immunology - and yes - you RIDICULED it.
>>
>> If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,
>
> I disagree.
>
>> so let's just
>> accept that you do not have any training in immunology & leave it at that.
>>
>>>> DOUBLEHINT: I'm on record on this ng for being a contributing author to a
>>>> peer-reviewed published paper on how microorganisms inherit antibiotic
>>>> resistance, too.
>>>
>>> By golly! A *contributing* author?! That's amazing. We are honoured to be
>>> in the presence of such greatness...
>>>
>>> Who was the senior author?
>>
>> First off, I was a lowly grad student, and secondly, all you have to do to
>> be a "contributing author" to such peer-reviewed papers is do some of the
>> research
>
> And what did you do that warrants you being able to still call yourself an
> immunologist decades later?
>
> I did my bachelors and PhD in Chemistry I don't call myself a chemist these
> days. I lead research projects in other fields.
>
>> - so you again ridiculing it isn't warranted as my point was only
>> that I have degrees
>
> That's what you claim yet won't directly evidence. The only thing others
> can go on is what you say, which is worthless. Especially when you
> constantly attack the messengers and name call.
>
>> in stuff that you iKooks don't and yet you iKooks
>> ridicule things such as a catenary & D-K quartiles & immunology terms.
>
> Name calling isn't at all ridiculouS, of course.
>
> The pattern, which you can't see of course, is you using terms incorrectly
> and then get all arsey when those who actually know stuff try to correct
> you.
>
>> My point is simply that you're all squarely to the west of Mount Stupid.
>> You're so stupid - you don't even realize how stupid you are.
>>
>> That's the nicest way I can put it, at least the nicest way I can think of.
>
> What's most funny regarding all this DK nonsense is you don't recognise how
> relevant it is to you. The more you claim you're an expert the more you
> come across as a know-it-all who actually knows little.
>
>>>> I won't quote it as my name is on it - and you'll refute
>>>> it out of hand
>>>
>>> So even you aren't confident on its significance.
>>
>> One scientific paper? The significance? Not much. However it was seminal.
>
> It can't be seminal if it wasn't very significant. Unless it's about
> semen...
>
>> We studied the organisms and we studied their reactions and we surmised how
>> what we observed could possibly have happened given the organisms were
>> never exposed to what they were found to be immune to and we looked at
>> patterns and we made assessments based on the facts as we knew them - which
>> - turns out - a decade later - we were vindicated in all our premises.
>
> You could easily tell us who the senior author was. They likely published
> dozens if not hundreds of papers which wouldn't divulge anything we don't
> already know.
>
> If any of this true, I suspect you didn't travel far so would have likely
> been at UCSF or UCSD.
>
>>
>> When you ridicule textbooks, it hints of you having never attended college.
>
> I'm not ridiculing books. I'm ridiculing you for using photos of books as
> evidence of your college degrees. The fact you feel the need to even do
> this speaks volumes about your fragile ego.
>
> You're right, I never attended college. I went straight to university from
> school.
>

He's already one up on you though. He posted pictures of his
books, and you haven't.

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>> I have a good memory, even after the recent spate of operations, where you
>>> ridiculed the use of "vehicle" in immunology - and yes - you RIDICULED it.
>>>
>>> If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,
>>
>> I disagree.
>
> Hi Chris,

You stated you'd find the cites. Where are they?

Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Chris wrote:
>> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> When you ridicule textbooks, it hints of you having never attended college.
>>
>> I'm not ridiculing books. I'm ridiculing you for using photos of books as
>> evidence of your college degrees. The fact you feel the need to even do
>> this speaks volumes about your fragile ego.
>>
>> You're right, I never attended college. I went straight to university from
>> school.
>>
>
> He's already one up on you though. He posted pictures of his
> books, and you haven't.

My bad. Here's my actual book...
https://img.ricardostatic.ch/images/e001bb9b-bf5e-4d5e-bf83-0e6db146e3cd/t_1000x750/physical-chemistry-atkins-de-paula

On 2023-12-28 15:25, Chris wrote:
> Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>> I have a good memory, even after the recent spate of operations, where you
>>>> ridiculed the use of "vehicle" in immunology - and yes - you RIDICULED it.
>>>>
>>>> If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,
>>>
>>> I disagree.
>>
>> Hi Chris,
>
> You stated you'd find the cites. Where are they?
>
>

Arlen?

Not following through and instead deflecting onto whether or not people
I know use "bimmer" instead of just saying "BMW"?

Say it ain't so!

😜

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

> My bad. Here's my actual book...
> https://img.ricardostatic.ch/images/e001bb9b-bf5e-4d5e-bf83-0e6db146e3cd/t_1000x750/physical-chemistry-atkins-de-paula

I asked you three extremely basic freshman inorganic chemistry questions,
Chris. Can you answer them? Or not?

I'll repeat EXACTLY what I had asked you to show that you know the most
basic of the simplest of the chemistry concepts that anyone should know.

What's the reason that water is such a good solvent, Chris?
Do you know?

HINT: You're furiously googling (much as Alan Baker would), but that's an
easy one to find in Google searches - so it's an easy one for you too.

Let's try what this means '1s22s22p6' (offhand I'm pretty sure that's
correct) as some things in chemistry (such as .0821) stick in your mind
because you use them so often.

What is the significance of those two sets of things above to chemistry?
Hint: They're both huge so if you have to google, you don't know chemistry.

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote

> You stated you'd find the cites.

You're so stupid, you don't even realize how stupid you are, Chris.
*You're classic Mount Stupid*, in fact, Chris.

That's a classic iKook tactic Chris - deny all facts - even words that YOU
said yourself (you hate that your whole life people called you stupid).

> Where are they?

The key way I'm different from you iKooks (other than my IQ isn't
substandard and I don't defend Apple to the death as a result), is that if
I say something happened - it happened.

I do not own an imaginary belief system like all you ignorant iKooks do.

Will you openly apologize when I post the URLs proving you said what you
said, Chris - or will you play silly childish iKook games again Chris?

Remember, I'm an adult. You're not.
I readily and easily admit when I'm accidentally wrong. You can't.

Do you know why?
I do.

HINT: You're a child, Chris. You have been told your entire life that you
are stupid and you are - so you're _afraid_ of admitting when you're wrong.
--
Someone once advised me that the tactic of the ignorant iKooks was to force
you to prove everything or they won't believe it - even words _they_ said.

On 2023-12-28 16:07, Wally J wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> You stated you'd find the cites.
>
> You're so stupid, you don't even realize how stupid you are, Chris.
> *You're classic Mount Stupid*, in fact, Chris.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> That's a classic iKook tactic Chris - deny all facts - even words that YOU
> said yourself (you hate that your whole life people called you stupid).

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
>> Where are they?
>
> The key way I'm different from you iKooks (other than my IQ isn't
> substandard and I don't defend Apple to the death as a result), is that if
> I say something happened - it happened.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> I do not own an imaginary belief system like all you ignorant iKooks do.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> Will you openly apologize when I post the URLs proving you said what you
> said, Chris - or will you play silly childish iKook games again Chris?

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> Remember, I'm an adult. You're not.
> I readily and easily admit when I'm accidentally wrong. You can't.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> Do you know why?
> I do.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

>
> HINT: You're a child, Chris. You have been told your entire life that you
> are stupid and you are - so you're _afraid_ of admitting when you're wrong.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

(Was that childish? 😜)

On 2023-12-28 15:56, Wally J wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> My bad. Here's my actual book...
>> https://img.ricardostatic.ch/images/e001bb9b-bf5e-4d5e-bf83-0e6db146e3cd/t_1000x750/physical-chemistry-atkins-de-paula
>
> I asked you three extremely basic freshman inorganic chemistry questions,
> Chris. Can you answer them? Or not?

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> I'll repeat EXACTLY what I had asked you to show that you know the most
> basic of the simplest of the chemistry concepts that anyone should know.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> What's the reason that water is such a good solvent, Chris?
> Do you know?

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> HINT: You're furiously googling (much as Alan Baker would), but that's an
> easy one to find in Google searches - so it's an easy one for you too.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> Let's try what this means '1s22s22p6' (offhand I'm pretty sure that's
> correct) as some things in chemistry (such as .0821) stick in your mind
> because you use them so often.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> What is the significance of those two sets of things above to chemistry?
> Hint: They're both huge so if you have to google, you don't know chemistry.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid> wrote

>> You're right, I never attended college. I went straight to university from
>> school.
>>
>
> He's already one up on you though. He posted pictures of his
> books, and you haven't.

Actually two up since I don't ever say anything I can't easily prove.

HINT: Have you ever found me NOT backing up EVERY one of my claims Hank?

(And, no, it doesn't count when I've backed it up a thousand times and the
iKooks say they missed the first thousand times so I need to do it again
for them because that's a classic child-brain ploy of Alan Baker.)

I don't say something is a fact that isn't a fact, Hank.
Because my belief systems are _based_ on the facts.

*That's a key difference between an adult and a child-like iKook.*

For example, nospam repeatedly claims apps in the app store that don't
exist, and Chris claims, in this case, that he didn't say what he did.

Who is that stupid?
Nobody right?

*Except the iKooks.*

JollY Roger repeatedly claims Apple fully patches all releases, when
clearly Apple does not. Who is that stupid? Nobody right?

*Except the iKooks.*

Alan Browne repeatedly claims there is no walled garden when every day he
logs into the very same walled garden he claim doesn't exist.

Who is that stupid?
Nobody right?

*Except the iKooks.*

Now we have Chris claiming to have a PhD when clearly he does not, where he
hasn't yet answered the simplest basic questions of chemistry I asked him,
but more so, he claims he didn't ridicule common immunological terms when
all I had to do was look up those terms to find that he did.

Who is that stupid?
Nobody right?

*Except the iKooks.*

That's why all the iKooks are far to the left of the D-K Mount Stupid.
They're all so stupid that they don't even realize how stupid they are.
--
I have two goals on these child-like Apple newsgroups, one of which is to
show the world what strange ignorant low-IQ people these iKooks really are.

On 2023-12-28 22:00, Wally J wrote:
> Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid> wrote
>
>>> You're right, I never attended college. I went straight to university from
>>> school.
>>>
>>
>> He's already one up on you though. He posted pictures of his
>> books, and you haven't.
>
> Actually two up since I don't ever say anything I can't easily prove.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> HINT: Have you ever found me NOT backing up EVERY one of my claims Hank?

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> (And, no, it doesn't count when I've backed it up a thousand times and the
> iKooks say they missed the first thousand times so I need to do it again
> for them because that's a classic child-brain ploy of Alan Baker.)

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> I don't say something is a fact that isn't a fact, Hank.
> Because my belief systems are _based_ on the facts.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> *That's a key difference between an adult and a child-like iKook.*

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> For example, nospam repeatedly claims apps in the app store that don't
> exist, and Chris claims, in this case, that he didn't say what he did.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> Who is that stupid?
> Nobody right?

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> *Except the iKooks.*
>
> JollY Roger repeatedly claims Apple fully patches all releases, when
> clearly Apple does not. Who is that stupid? Nobody right?

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> *Except the iKooks.*
>
> Alan Browne repeatedly claims there is no walled garden when every day he
> logs into the very same walled garden he claim doesn't exist.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> Who is that stupid?
> Nobody right?
>
> *Except the iKooks.*
>
> Now we have Chris claiming to have a PhD when clearly he does not, where he
> hasn't yet answered the simplest basic questions of chemistry I asked him,
> but more so, he claims he didn't ridicule common immunological terms when
> all I had to do was look up those terms to find that he did.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

>
> Who is that stupid?
> Nobody right?
>
> *Except the iKooks.*
>
> That's why all the iKooks are far to the left of the D-K Mount Stupid.
> They're all so stupid that they don't even realize how stupid they are.

"If you disagree, you'll simply force me to find the cites,"

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> You stated you'd find the cites.
>
> You're so stupid,

Any chance of those promised cites? Without the abuse and name calling.
That would be much appreciated.