badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>
>>> Note: I am not a racer nor a mathematician. I�m just someone who
>>>would like to see the bickering end.
>>>
>>Then tell Arlen to cease.
>
> It looks like he did. Alan revived the argument and created a new
> thread for it.

Hi badgolferman,

I have nothing more to say about the catenary but I do bring up...
*Mount Stupid*

Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?
<https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>

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.
<https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJkCp.png>

While _everyone_ fits into the Dunning-Kruger quartiles, the iKooks fit far
to the left of the first quartile - where that's what I was proving to all.
<https://i.stack.imgur.com/wgoc9.jpg>

I think I made my point on the catenary, where you, yourself, accurately
surmised why understanding the nature of curves, particularly this curve,
is critically important in any racing circuit where YOU control the vehicle
(bearing in mind that on roads, there is two-way traffic - so you have to
stay within your lane - which isn't likely to be a catenary in most cases).

However... for an iPhone newsgroup... the catenary itself is unimportant.

My only reason for bringing up the catenary was to show the iKooks for what
they are, particularly when we were discussing that in the Dunning Kruger
first quartile, some people who claim to be "experts" at something, are so
utterly clueless that they are "over confident" in their lack of knowledge.
<https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgbX3.jpg>

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).

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.
--
The mere fact any given person hasn't even heard of the common racing term,
shows a supreme lack of basic knowledge, given it has been discussed since
Galilean days (he actually got it wrong though) becasue it's one of the
fundamental curves exemplifying the Newtonian forces of nature in a curve.

On 2023-12-24, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-19 16:36, Wally J wrote:
>>> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Nice spread!
>>>
>>> While I don't claim to be a racer, I know what a catenary is. Does
>>> Alan Baker?
>>
>> So I posted on a website completely dedicated to open wheel racing
>> and I asked if any of the drivers there had ever heard "catenary"
>> used in relation to racing?
>
> It’s clear Arlen has gotten under your skin now that you need others
> to validate your position.

Adults will see this for what it is, yet another post from badgolferman
always in support of, never in opposition of Arlen's lame trolls. 😉

--
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

Wally J <walterjones@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>>>> Note: I am not a racer nor a mathematician. Iขm just someone who
>>>> would like to see the bickering end.
>>>>
>>> Then tell Arlen to cease.
>>
>> It looks like he did. Alan revived the argument and created a new
>> thread for it.
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> I have nothing more to say about the catenary but I do bring up...
> *Mount Stupid*
>
> 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.
>
> <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.”

Add that to https://youtu.be/kcfRe15I47I?si=wOBDGBaO1SiUx5I6
>
> 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.
>
> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJkCp.png>
>
> While _everyone_ fits into the Dunning-Kruger quartiles, the iKooks fit far
> to the left of the first quartile - where that's what I was proving to all.
> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/wgoc9.jpg>
>
> I think I made my point on the catenary, where you, yourself, accurately
> surmised why understanding the nature of curves, particularly this curve,
> is critically important in any racing circuit where YOU control the vehicle
> (bearing in mind that on roads, there is two-way traffic - so you have to
> stay within your lane - which isn't likely to be a catenary in most cases).
>
> However... for an iPhone newsgroup... the catenary itself is unimportant.
>
> My only reason for bringing up the catenary was to show the iKooks for what
> they are, particularly when we were discussing that in the Dunning Kruger
> first quartile, some people who claim to be "experts" at something, are so
> utterly clueless that they are "over confident" in their lack of knowledge.
> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgbX3.jpg>
>
> 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.
>
> 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.

On 2023-12-24 10:12, Wally J wrote:
> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>
>>>> Note: I am not a racer nor a mathematician. I▌ just someone who
>>>> would like to see the bickering end.
>>>>
>>> Then tell Arlen to cease.
>>
>> It looks like he did. Alan revived the argument and created a new
>> thread for it.
>
> Hi badgolferman,
>
> I have nothing more to say about the catenary but I do bring up...
> *Mount Stupid*
>
> Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?
> <https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>
>
> 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.
> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJkCp.png>
>
> While _everyone_ fits into the Dunning-Kruger quartiles, the iKooks fit far
> to the left of the first quartile - where that's what I was proving to all.
> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/wgoc9.jpg>
>
> I think I made my point on the catenary,

No, you didn't.

You utterly refused to state what role the catenary curve played in racing.

> where you, yourself, accurately
> surmised why understanding the nature of curves, particularly this curve,
> is critically important in any racing circuit where YOU control the vehicle
> (bearing in mind that on roads, there is two-way traffic - so you have to
> stay within your lane - which isn't likely to be a catenary in most cases).

And even now you refuse to state simply what a catenary is supposed to
be in relation to racing; just that it's "critically important".

>
> However... for an iPhone newsgroup... the catenary itself is unimportant.

It is also completely unimportant in

>
> My only reason for bringing up the catenary was to show the iKooks for what
> they are, particularly when we were discussing that in the Dunning Kruger
> first quartile, some people who claim to be "experts" at something, are so
> utterly clueless that they are "over confident" in their lack of knowledge.
> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgbX3.jpg>
>
> 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).
>
> Alan Baker is likewise lying.
> So be it.

LOL

I think I've provided sufficient evidence of my qualifications that
everyone knows who is lying ehere.

>
> 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.

I never said I was ignorant of what a catenary was, coward.

Come on out of your killfile and engage...

....if you're man enough.

:-)

Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-24 10:12, Wally J wrote:
>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Note: I am not a racer nor a mathematician. I▌ just someone who
>>>>> would like to see the bickering end.
>>>>>
>>>> Then tell Arlen to cease.
>>>
>>> It looks like he did. Alan revived the argument and created a new
>>> thread for it.
>>
>> Hi badgolferman,
>>
>> I have nothing more to say about the catenary but I do bring up...
>> *Mount Stupid*
>>
>> Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?
>> <https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>
>>
>> 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.
>> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJkCp.png>
>>
>> While _everyone_ fits into the Dunning-Kruger quartiles, the iKooks fit far
>> to the left of the first quartile - where that's what I was proving to all.
>> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/wgoc9.jpg>
>>
>> I think I made my point on the catenary,
>
> No, you didn't.
>
> You utterly refused to state what role the catenary curve played in racing.
>
>> where you, yourself, accurately
>> surmised why understanding the nature of curves, particularly this curve,
>> is critically important in any racing circuit where YOU control the vehicle
>> (bearing in mind that on roads, there is two-way traffic - so you have to
>> stay within your lane - which isn't likely to be a catenary in most cases).
>
> And even now you refuse to state simply what a catenary is supposed to
> be in relation to racing; just that it's "critically important".
>
>>
>> However... for an iPhone newsgroup... the catenary itself is unimportant.
>
> It is also completely unimportant in
>
>>
>> My only reason for bringing up the catenary was to show the iKooks for what
>> they are, particularly when we were discussing that in the Dunning Kruger
>> first quartile, some people who claim to be "experts" at something, are so
>> utterly clueless that they are "over confident" in their lack of knowledge.
>> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgbX3.jpg>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> Alan Baker is likewise lying.
>> So be it.
>
> LOL
>
> I think I've provided sufficient evidence of my qualifications that
> everyone knows who is lying ehere.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I never said I was ignorant of what a catenary was, coward.
>
> Come on out of your killfile and engage...
>
> ...if you're man enough.
>
> :-)
>
Oh he has you killfiled? Then let me broadcast your challenge to the
pseudointellectual coward.

On 2023-12-24 11:47, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-24 10:12, Wally J wrote:
>>> badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Note: I am not a racer nor a mathematician. I▌ just someone who
>>>>>> would like to see the bickering end.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Then tell Arlen to cease.
>>>>
>>>> It looks like he did. Alan revived the argument and created a new
>>>> thread for it.
>>>
>>> Hi badgolferman,
>>>
>>> I have nothing more to say about the catenary but I do bring up...
>>> *Mount Stupid*
>>>
>>> Have you ever heard of "*Mount Stupid*" before I brought up Dunning-Kruger?
>>> <https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/17825/what-is-the-primary-source-of-the-mount-stupid-graphic>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/NJkCp.png>
>>>
>>> While _everyone_ fits into the Dunning-Kruger quartiles, the iKooks fit far
>>> to the left of the first quartile - where that's what I was proving to all.
>>> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/wgoc9.jpg>
>>>
>>> I think I made my point on the catenary,
>>
>> No, you didn't.
>>
>> You utterly refused to state what role the catenary curve played in racing.
>>
>>> where you, yourself, accurately
>>> surmised why understanding the nature of curves, particularly this curve,
>>> is critically important in any racing circuit where YOU control the vehicle
>>> (bearing in mind that on roads, there is two-way traffic - so you have to
>>> stay within your lane - which isn't likely to be a catenary in most cases).
>>
>> And even now you refuse to state simply what a catenary is supposed to
>> be in relation to racing; just that it's "critically important".
>>
>>>
>>> However... for an iPhone newsgroup... the catenary itself is unimportant.
>>
>> It is also completely unimportant in
>>
>>>
>>> My only reason for bringing up the catenary was to show the iKooks for what
>>> they are, particularly when we were discussing that in the Dunning Kruger
>>> first quartile, some people who claim to be "experts" at something, are so
>>> utterly clueless that they are "over confident" in their lack of knowledge.
>>> <https://i.stack.imgur.com/XgbX3.jpg>
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>> Alan Baker is likewise lying.
>>> So be it.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> I think I've provided sufficient evidence of my qualifications that
>> everyone knows who is lying ehere.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I never said I was ignorant of what a catenary was, coward.
>>
>> Come on out of your killfile and engage...
>>
>> ...if you're man enough.
>>
>> :-)
>>
> Oh he has you killfiled?

So he claims...

> Then let me broadcast your challenge to the
> pseudointellectual coward.

*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote

> Oh he has you killfiled?

I read everything most iKooks write, as I study these strange low-IQ
uneducated ignorant and yet oh-so-very confident Apple zealots.

But I've long ago plonked Alan Baker.

OBSERVATION:
a. Alan Baker swears he knows BMWs & yet he doesn't know the simplest terms
b. Alan Browne swears the walled garden he logs into doesn't actually exist
c. Chris swears he has a medical-based PhD & yet ridiculed immunology terms
e. Jolly Roger swears Apple fully patches older releases when Apple doesn't
f. nospam swears graphical signal strength apps exist - and yet they do not
g. Hemidactylus refutes D-K effects & yet he never read the seminal papers
etc.

In decades of posting daily to Usenet, I've only needed to plonk a small
handful of people who not only add absolutely no value (and who can't
possibly add value), but everything they post actually _subtracts_ value.

Offhand, Alan Baker is one, but so are Snit & Rod Speed.

Pointedly, I have not killfiled' you, Hemidactylus, as I feel you do have
value to add - and I am patiently trying to help you learn about the D-K
effect, where if you simply stopped lying that you read the seminal papers,
you would be able to comprehend where Mount Stupid plays a role.

Likewise if Alan Browne stopped lying that he doesn't log into the walled
garden, he too has the potential to learn.

Hell, even Jolly Roger, if he stopped lying that APple fully patches older
releases, he is probably the one who could most benefit from my advice.

Too bad nospam has left the group as I always thought he was a shill for
Apple where Apple had him defending everythign Apple did to the death.

Chris too has seemed to have left but maybe I plonked him too (I don't
remember as I have to manually add people to the regex expressions to plonk
them where I've added any subject line or FROM line with "Arlen" in it
(as that's always an attack by Alan Baker so they're plonked out of hand).
--
For details, please see this new thread in detailed response to you:
*These strange low-IQ uneducated ignorant iKooks live on Mount Stupid*
Message-ID: <uma3kf$17h9i$1@paganini.bofh.team>
<https://groups.google.com/g/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/c/9eiX08J_g_w>

On 2023-12-24 12:35, Wally J wrote:
> *Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote
>
>> Oh he has you killfiled?
>
> I read everything most iKooks write, as I study these strange low-IQ
> uneducated ignorant and yet oh-so-very confident Apple zealots.
>
> But I've long ago plonked Alan Baker.
>
> OBSERVATION:
> a. Alan Baker swears he knows BMWs & yet he doesn't know the simplest terms

I swear I know that I OWN a 2012 BMW 135i M Sport in LeMans Blue...

....and that I have quite a few friends who race BMW 325s in a class
called "Pro 3".

> b. Alan Browne swears the walled garden he logs into doesn't actually exist
> c. Chris swears he has a medical-based PhD & yet ridiculed immunology terms
> e. Jolly Roger swears Apple fully patches older releases when Apple doesn't
> f. nospam swears graphical signal strength apps exist - and yet they do not
> g. Hemidactylus refutes D-K effects & yet he never read the seminal papers
> etc.
>
> In decades of posting daily to Usenet, I've only needed to plonk a small
> handful of people who not only add absolutely no value (and who can't
> possibly add value), but everything they post actually _subtracts_ value.
>
> Offhand, Alan Baker is one, but so are Snit & Rod Speed.
>
> Pointedly, I have not killfiled' you, Hemidactylus, as I feel you do have
> value to add - and I am patiently trying to help you learn about the D-K
> effect, where if you simply stopped lying that you read the seminal papers,
> you would be able to comprehend where Mount Stupid plays a role.
>
> Likewise if Alan Browne stopped lying that he doesn't log into the walled
> garden, he too has the potential to learn.
>
> Hell, even Jolly Roger, if he stopped lying that APple fully patches older
> releases, he is probably the one who could most benefit from my advice.
>
> Too bad nospam has left the group as I always thought he was a shill for
> Apple where Apple had him defending everythign Apple did to the death.
>
> Chris too has seemed to have left but maybe I plonked him too (I don't
> remember as I have to manually add people to the regex expressions to plonk
> them where I've added any subject line or FROM line with "Arlen" in it
> (as that's always an attack by Alan Baker so they're plonked out of hand).

Does anyone else notice that Arlen failed to engage with anything I
said, cowardly choosing to snip it all?

badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote

>> as I believe you have a Gold Wing),
>>
>
> Just a minor discrepancy...

Oh. Thank you. I hadn't even thought of it. I used to ride a bunch of
Suzuki's before I had the beemer but I hadn't thought of the Goldwing
branding. Thanks for correcting my unthinking error. I apologize.

Better yet, I _appreciate_ the clarification as it makes me more
knowledgeable and understanding as a result. Thanks!

I hate being ignorant.

> It's actually a Honda Goldwing, not Gold Wing. I know you will find both
> written versions on the internet and even at the website, but the logo,
> manual, and electronic screen all print it as Goldwing. The same holds true
> for the Honda Silverwing.

Thanks. It's important to know the difference. Since I didn't know the
difference, I couldn't even assess if it mattered - but now that I'm aware,
I can make my own judgment as to which to use.

An example is "loan" vs "lend" or "soil" vs "dirt" or "rock" vs "stone" or
"who" vs "whom" or any number of distinctions (e.g., "tree" vs "bush").

For each of the above, I'm aware of the controversy, whereas those who are
completely ignorant aren't even aware there are discussions about that.

If I don't know there _is_ a difference, then I can't intelligently choose
one or the other - but if I know there is a bone of contention, I can.

Thanks for letting me know. I'll try to use the single-word trademarked
version moving forward, as I see no advantage to breaking it into two.

BTW, I loved my GS650EX even more than the K1200RS because that little
rice burner was more comfortable to ride than the beemer could ever be.

And I prefer a Toyota nowadays to the bimmer because of the reliability.
Point being we change in our preferences, sometimes, as we get older.

Were I ever to buy another of either, it'd be Japanese for sure as I'm done
with the Germans not understanding how to link systems together other than
just the power train (which, I admit, the Germans do know how to design).

> My mother who is from Germany, gets upset when people refer to the BMW as a
> Beemer or Bimmer and considers that disrespectful.

Actually, there is discussion about that, as I recall, where it's a term
that arose in _British_ racing circuits, and which crossed the Pond when
the American obsession with bimmers (much more so than beemers) occurred.

It's most ridiculously used when a person posts how great they are at
mechanical stuff on the BMW forums and then they use the ignorant words.

It's like a person with fancy clothes but no education, which is a poser.

However, in Germany, they use the German names anyway - so BMW doesn't
translate to beemer or bimmer for them - as I recall from discussions.

> I tried to tell her Americans shorten words because we're lazy.

The Europeans below the 42nd parallel use long names but when in the USA,
we shorten those names to roughly four letters - so it's kind of true.

It's part of our culture.

> Remember International House Of
> Pancakes (IHOP) and Dairy Queen (DQ) ? I'm sure you can think of many other
> companies that have given in to slang expressions.

I know it well with names, as we shorten Richard to Dick for example.

It has been my understanding that the Europeans below the 42nd parallel do
it less so than those above - where we Americans are "mostly" from above.