Christmas vs "Holidays"

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:31:22 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:30:15 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
wrote (in odl6s01pd7m8kbnqe2hfeue4as6o1es1d8@
4ax.com) about 'Christmas vs "Holidays"', on Fri, 17 Dec 2004:

"They are not areodynamicly sound." Ignoring the misspelling that is
still a dumb-ass statement. If the bee flies it IS aerodynamically
sound! We "scientists" are just too ignorant of the laws of
aerodynamics to understand HOW.

Bumble-bee flight has been understood for about 40 years. The earlier
paper that described it as impossible used an inadequate model, a
problem that you may be familiar with!

But models of flight are **difficult**. There has been a significant
recent development in the model of bird flight.

Has anyone ever determined exactly how a common housefly lands on a
ceiling? Does he do a loop-the-loop, or a barrel roll?

Thanks,
Rich


I think it's barrel roll.

I have determined, by experiment, that a fly CAN NOT take off while
rubbing the fore-legs together. Thus I wait, with a swatter, for the
leg rubbing, then SLAM ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 22:30:15 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:


Has anyone ever determined exactly how a common housefly lands on a
ceiling? Does he do a loop-the-loop, or a barrel roll?

Thanks,
Rich



Yes, it's been determined. Christian flies do it one way, Muslims another,
Buddhist yet another.

Paul

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:14:28 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:31:22 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:
....
Has anyone ever determined exactly how a common housefly lands on a
ceiling? Does he do a loop-the-loop, or a barrel roll?

Thanks,
Rich


I think it's barrel roll.

I have determined, by experiment, that a fly CAN NOT take off while
rubbing the fore-legs together. Thus I wait, with a swatter, for the
leg rubbing, then SLAM ;-)


Thanks for this (and the other respondents), but as far as watching for
them rubbing their front legs together, I haven't tried that. My
experience has been that they're telepathic, i.e., they know I'm about to
swat them, and take off milliseconds before the rolled-up magazine gets
there.

maudlin crying-drunk crap
Did you ever catch one alive in your bare hand when you were a
spring chicken? I have, but then have never been able to figure out what
to do to them, since I'm an empath, and pulling their wings off hurts
them, much like sticking a fishhook through a worm hurts them.

And I'll never forget the time my big brother pulled the hook out of a
bass. He didn't unhook it, just ripped it out. Or the time the neighbor
kid caught a grasshopper and pulled its head off. I guess I'm just
squeamish.
/maudlin crying-drunk crap

Thanks,
Rich

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:14:28 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:31:22 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:
....
Has anyone ever determined exactly how a common housefly lands on a
ceiling? Does he do a loop-the-loop, or a barrel roll?

Thanks,
Rich


I think it's barrel roll.

I have determined, by experiment, that a fly CAN NOT take off while
rubbing the fore-legs together. Thus I wait, with a swatter, for the
leg rubbing, then SLAM ;-)


Thanks for this (and the other respondents), but as far as watching for
them rubbing their front legs together, I haven't tried that. My
experience has been that they're telepathic, i.e., they know I'm about to
swat them, and take off milliseconds before the rolled-up magazine gets
there.

maudlin crying-drunk crap
Did you ever catch one alive in your bare hand when you were a
spring chicken? I have, but then have never been able to figure out what
to do to them, since I'm an empath, and pulling their wings off hurts
them, much like sticking a fishhook through a worm hurts them.

And I'll never forget the time my big brother pulled the hook out of a
bass. He didn't unhook it, just ripped it out. Or the time the neighbor
kid caught a grasshopper and pulled its head off. I guess I'm just
squeamish.
/maudlin crying-drunk crap

Thanks,
Rich

I read in sci.electronics.design that James A. Doemer
wrote (in
..pas.earthlink.net) about 'Christmas vs "Holidays"', on Fri, 17 Dec
2004:

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
news
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
wrote (in
onder.co.uk) about 'Christmas vs "Holidays"', on Fri, 17 Dec 2004:

So, Paul (if he existed) died, and no one
noticed.

There IS reliable independent evidence that Paul existed.

Such as?


Go look. I don't have to spoon-feed you with information.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

I read in sci.electronics.design that James A. Doemer
wrote (in
..pas.earthlink.net) about 'Christmas vs "Holidays"', on Fri, 17 Dec
2004:

"John Woodgate" wrote in message
news
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
wrote (in
onder.co.uk) about 'Christmas vs "Holidays"', on Fri, 17 Dec 2004:

So, Paul (if he existed) died, and no one
noticed.

There IS reliable independent evidence that Paul existed.

Such as?


Go look. I don't have to spoon-feed you with information.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise
wrote (in ) about 'Christmas
vs "Holidays"', on Sat, 18 Dec 2004:

Has anyone ever determined exactly how a common housefly lands on a
ceiling? Does he do a loop-the-loop, or a barrel roll?

A barrel-roll, IIRC. This was discovered about 20 years ago, I think.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Grise
wrote (in ) about 'Christmas
vs "Holidays"', on Sat, 18 Dec 2004:

Has anyone ever determined exactly how a common housefly lands on a
ceiling? Does he do a loop-the-loop, or a barrel roll?

A barrel-roll, IIRC. This was discovered about 20 years ago, I think.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
. ..
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:26:15 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Pretty simple. Its full of demonstrable blatant contradictions, so
this view is not debateable. In science, when when get
contradictions, we declare the thing to be false. e.g.
www.evilbible.com.
Well, I know now you can not be a scientist,

oh?

because the ones I know
say that if they get solutions that are contradictory, they first
check the input for errors and then rerun the program.

I didn't claim that *only* when a *solution* is *apparently*
contradictory that the thing is false. I said when we get
contradictions. This implicitly implies that there exists a *verifiable*
contradiction at the deepest level.

Of course, it is trivially obvious that the contradiction must be real.
i.e. the equipment and all that stuff is verified, so why should this be
stated?

Contradictions are NOT proof of falsehood, they only speak to the
need for further research.

If a contradiction is real, it is indeed proof of a falsehood. Your
arguing about whether or not the contraction is real or not. This is
assumed to be the case from the outset. If the contradiction is not
real, then we don't have a contradiction. Dah...

IF all scientists had the view that you
have we would NOT be able to communicate this way and bumble bees
would not fly.

Unfortunately you don't understand the views of scientists, or science.
Your certainly way out of date on the theory of bumble bee flight.


Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

wrote:
"Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
. ..
Rich The Philosophizer wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:26:15 +0000, Kevin Aylward wrote:

Pretty simple. Its full of demonstrable blatant contradictions, so
this view is not debateable. In science, when when get
contradictions, we declare the thing to be false. e.g.
www.evilbible.com.
Well, I know now you can not be a scientist,

oh?

because the ones I know
say that if they get solutions that are contradictory, they first
check the input for errors and then rerun the program.

I didn't claim that *only* when a *solution* is *apparently*
contradictory that the thing is false. I said when we get
contradictions. This implicitly implies that there exists a *verifiable*
contradiction at the deepest level.

Of course, it is trivially obvious that the contradiction must be real.
i.e. the equipment and all that stuff is verified, so why should this be
stated?

Contradictions are NOT proof of falsehood, they only speak to the
need for further research.

If a contradiction is real, it is indeed proof of a falsehood. Your
arguing about whether or not the contraction is real or not. This is
assumed to be the case from the outset. If the contradiction is not
real, then we don't have a contradiction. Dah...

IF all scientists had the view that you
have we would NOT be able to communicate this way and bumble bees
would not fly.

Unfortunately you don't understand the views of scientists, or science.
Your certainly way out of date on the theory of bumble bee flight.


Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.