Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
by the way gslack, you still havent responded to the question of why you support wirebender's 'math' even though he used the wrong temperature in the S-B equation. why do you think others should respond to your questions when you wont reply to other people's questions?
WOW Ian... Just wow... You are one egotistical man, and with no good reason for it.. It certainly doesn't show in your knowledge here and most assuredly not in your logic..
3 people now are in agreement to some degree on this at least, and rather than face the possibility you may be wrong, you decided to insult the calm and relaxed voice of reason.. Seriously Ian, grow up..
polar bear is the calm and relaxed voice of reason? hahaha, even polar bear wouldnt agree with that. polar bear is a brusk, insensitive, longwinded blowhard who is smart enough and educated enough to have his own opinions and back them up. that's why I like him, or at least find him entertaining. at least for a paragraph or two, before my eyes glaze over.
You really do think you are the smartest guy around don't you.... Wow its not your online persona you really do believe yourself so much smarter than everyone else... WOW!!!!!
How exactly did you come this hypothesis "oh great internet brain"? Seriously dude what gave you the impression you are so brilliant? I don't see it here, and from your lack of knowledge shown repeatedly its not in your education.. So please enlighten us all as to how you reached the conclusion you were so brilliant?
what I mean by the ambient temperature is the defined vacuum container that is kept at 0F (255K). this was the first mistake in wirebender's 'debunking'.
Wirebender made no mistakes Ian. If you could do the math, you might be able to check but clearly you can't. There are a few things that you apparently don't know about the SB law. The first is that the SB law calculates the radiation emitting from any surface that is above absolute zero. It does so even when the background is not at absolute zero. As I said, if you could do the math, you could check the math and see for yourself that I made no mistake.
1.) @wirebender...I have not had a chance yet to read the whole thread who said what ...but I`m going to...this is a very interesting discussion...and I`ll try answer that to the best of my ability...
I`ll start out by saying that in Physics text can be expressed as equations, and anyone who truly understands an equation has no trouble to substitute the equation with words..., that anybody can understand..
That is especially true with all the German Physics literature...it is a lot easier to understand than reading the same statements in English.
Many therefore prefer to study Physics and certain Math in German although that is not their mother tongue.
I could do this either way, in Text form or with equations...I do have all the necessary symbols in my alternate keyboard tables...which do You prefer..??
Thanks. Given a choice, I would prefer an explanation in words. I took a good deal of math, chemistry and physics in college, but when I decided to go into medicine, most of that fell by the wayside. I can do the math, but it is an endeavor every time I do. I don't make my day to day living with the math; I bend wires (orthodontics).
I do remember though from physics class that we weren't allowed to just use algebraic properties with physics problems because we found the problem easier to work out as a result of applying the property. When you alter the equation, even when the answer is the same, you have altered the physical meaning of what is happening.
Specifically, the claim that p=sigma (T^4 - T^4) represents the same physical processes as P=(sigma T^4)-(sigma T^4). To my understanding, the first represents the SB law as published by SB, that being a blackbody at a warmer temperature radiating into a colder background (no back-radiation); whle the second represents the net difference between a black body at a warmer temperature radiating into a colder background and a colder background which is represented to be a black-body radiating into a warmer black-body which is represented as a colder background. The answer is the same, but the physical processes they describe seem to me to be very different. One representing reality and the other representing a means of promoting AGW alarmism.
If you don't have back-radiation, you don't have AGW alarmism.
WOW Ian... Just wow... You are one egotistical man, and with no good reason for it.. It certainly doesn't show in your knowledge here and most assuredly not in your logic..
3 people now are in agreement to some degree on this at least, and rather than face the possibility you may be wrong, you decided to insult the calm and relaxed voice of reason.. Seriously Ian, grow up..
polar bear is the calm and relaxed voice of reason? hahaha, even polar bear wouldnt agree with that. polar bear is a brusk, insensitive, longwinded blowhard who is smart enough and educated enough to have his own opinions and back them up. that's why I like him, or at least find him entertaining. at least for a paragraph or two, before my eyes glaze over.
You really do think you are the smartest guy around don't you.... Wow its not your online persona you really do believe yourself so much smarter than everyone else... WOW!!!!!
How exactly did you come this hypothesis "oh great internet brain"? Seriously dude what gave you the impression you are so brilliant? I don't see it here, and from your lack of knowledge shown repeatedly its not in your education.. So please enlighten us all as to how you reached the conclusion you were so brilliant?
@ IanC...
No I don`t cite "my own opinion" as You accuse me of how I "back up my own claims"...
I do`nt need the internet for this either, but I do have shelves full of Physics & Chemistry books that I needed for my work and I do have access to my Universities Library even though I am now retired.
what I mean by the ambient temperature is the defined vacuum container that is kept at 0F (255K). this was the first mistake in wirebender's 'debunking'.
Wirebender made no mistakes Ian. If you could do the math, you might be able to check but clearly you can't. There are a few things that you apparently don't know about the SB law. The first is that the SB law calculates the radiation emitting from any surface that is above absolute zero. It does so even when the background is not at absolute zero. As I said, if you could do the math, you could check the math and see for yourself that I made no mistake.
I did do the math. you used T^4 - 0^4 for temperature radiating into space. but the experiment defined the receiving container as 255K not 0K. (T^4 -0) does not equal (T^4 - 255^4). it works out to about a ten degree difference.
why cant you just admit to making a simple mistake?
GW also uses back-radiation where nothing is missing from convective heat transfer, which is a massive amount...
But as You noticed they are also using the same proportionality factor (sigma) of the ideal black body to make the case for CO2 as a black body
radiator....
a black body can absorb light energy at all wavelength, that`s why it is called a "black body"
CO2 does not even qualify as a so called "grey body"
the Bolzmann law quantifies "j" as a THEORETIC thermodynamic Temperature
@ IanC...
No I don`t cite "my own opinion" as You accuse me of how I "back up my own claims"...
I do`nt need the internet for this either, but I do have shelves full of Physics & Chemistry books that I needed for my work and I do have access to my Universities Library even though I am now retired.
I am too terse and you are too verbose. what I meant by your own opinions is that you synthesize your understanding of a process from basics rather than accepting them whole cloth from someone else. I like your abilty to analyze things coming from different directions rather than simply accepting authority.
polar bear is the calm and relaxed voice of reason? hahaha, even polar bear wouldnt agree with that. polar bear is a brusk, insensitive, longwinded blowhard who is smart enough and educated enough to have his own opinions and back them up. that's why I like him, or at least find him entertaining. at least for a paragraph or two, before my eyes glaze over.
You really do think you are the smartest guy around don't you.... Wow its not your online persona you really do believe yourself so much smarter than everyone else... WOW!!!!!
How exactly did you come this hypothesis "oh great internet brain"? Seriously dude what gave you the impression you are so brilliant? I don't see it here, and from your lack of knowledge shown repeatedly its not in your education.. So please enlighten us all as to how you reached the conclusion you were so brilliant?
please show where I have claimed to be brilliant. wirebender put out a call to prove his math wrong. I have and yet you two refuse to admit it.
You really do think you are the smartest guy around don't you.... Wow its not your online persona you really do believe yourself so much smarter than everyone else... WOW!!!!!
How exactly did you come this hypothesis "oh great internet brain"? Seriously dude what gave you the impression you are so brilliant? I don't see it here, and from your lack of knowledge shown repeatedly its not in your education.. So please enlighten us all as to how you reached the conclusion you were so brilliant?
please show where I have claimed to be brilliant. wirebender put out a call to prove his math wrong. I have and yet you two refuse to admit it.
I never said you claimed it, or even said it.. I said you think it, and that is plain as day. it shows in your behavior and actions all too clearly. You have done nothing, I repeat nothing but talk shit and post googled terms. You pretend you know, but your behavior, manner, lack of knowledge, lack of everything except your pathetic big talk and deliberate attempts to confound everything you cannot disprove with a google search, tell us all the exact opposite..
Come on douchebag, you think are a genius and whats more THE GENIUS.. You show it in the way you respond to anyone who dares to show any mathematical ability or knowledge and express opinions or facts that may differ from your own. You sit back call them wrong and cite googled terms and definitions you do not understand while pretending some greater knowledge and they're so far beneath you..
You do it all the time tool, you did it with wire, then me, and now polarbear who was actually trying to clarify what he felt (by giving you the benefit of the doubt) was a simple misconception of a few of the finer points in spencers experiment. he wasn't rude, dismissive, or belittling you in any way shape or form but you had to be rude to try and cover your lack of knowledge..
What you think your act is new? HAHAHAHAHA! Dude your act is as old as web forums. Gimme a break there are so many like you on these kinds of places, every forum has at least a few of you. You talk shit and pretend to be so much above everyone else usually your types are in some kind scientific field... Coincidence? I think not.. Dr Gregg, was supposed to be a chemist and as it soon turned out he was a fraud. That was just a year ago on this very forum. We have several others trying the same act, all of it bullshit and all of it may differ slightly but still the same act.
You choose science because in your vanity you believe you can out think anyone even though you have no reason to believe it. You obviously haven't had the education for it, you most assuredly don't have the ability to think on more than one level at a time, and as far as I can see you just unjustifiably deem yourself better my right or by intellect.
You have been dismissive of everyone who dares to disagree with you. Whats that tell you Ian.. Wire, me, and now polarbear all of whom you have agreed with at times, and even shown respect for. Respect until anyone of us dare to challenge your superiority then you become a rude, arrogant, egomaniac who will do or say anything to protect his pride.. A pride which YOU have not earned. You bullshitted your way into it and did it so long you forget the reality.
Reality check Ian..
1. You are no more a physics expert or even competent student than I am a one-armed lion tamer..
2. Being the smartest guy in a room full of idiots makes you the smartest idiot, not a genius.
3. You cannot fake real knowledge. Every time you have to go into depth or detail you will ALWAYS do or say something that a perceptive person who is not easily intimidated by titles (real, implied or imagined) or claims of brilliance you have yet to show, will call you on it. Just like I did, I tested you multiple times and you failed every single one miserably..
4. There is a little white spot on top of chicken shit, and despite its pure white appearance, that part is chicken shit too. That means no matter how much you sling or how good you think your bullshit is, its still limited by the simple fact it is bullshit, and susceptible to the weakness of its originator. Meaning YOU are the weakest link in your fake internet persona. only bullshit requires a salesman, the truth just is and will stand on its own. You try to hard Ian, bullshitters always do.
5. You are internet phony nothing more. You play a part online, and thats the extent of your brilliance. And being weasel enough to talk in circles and dismiss everyone off-hand is not a win by any standard other than your own.
Ian truth is I would bet there are at least 50 people on this board I have talked to that can think rings around you. At least 20 with far superior applicable mathematical knowledge than you, and at least as many who can dance and posture better than you do. you aren't even a good second place in any area i can think of here. Except maybe being a total douchebag... Well no there are better ones than you at that too..
I am not supporting GW or AGW except to say that extra CO2 does send some radiation back at the earth. I am not trying to quantify other than to say it is one process occuring in the atmosphere that adds to energy retention by choking off energy loss along one pathway.
I am not supporting the specific calculations done for Trenberth's energy budget other than to say the pathways identified are indeed pathways for energy to come in and go out.
my dog in this fight is to prick the balloon of pomposity that wirebender carries around when he shouts 'here is my position, and the math to prove it'. but when push comes to shove he chickens out. he refuses to show the post where is math is, now that he finally provided some math that he copied from someone else to debunk Spencer he refuses to admit a simple mathematical mistake at the very beginning.
oh, and one of your comments intrigued me. if you did shine an airplane or train light at a car headlight and waited for it to come to equilibrium are you sure that no change would occur? I think it would draw less power rather than change emmission values but it could be both.
Unfortunately, there is not simply good and bad thinking in the world, both easily recognized as such. There is also bad thinking that appears to be good and therefore wrongfully, sometimes disastrously, used as the basis of very important decisions. Very often this “bad thinking” is defended and “rationalized” in a highly sophisticated fashion. However flawed, it successfully counterfeits good thinking, and otherwise intelligent people are taken in. Such thinking is found in every dimension of human life and in every dimension it does harm; in every dimension it works against human well-being.


Sometimes when people think poorly, they do so out of simple ignorance. They are making mistakes, they don’t know they are making mistakes, but they would willingly correct their mistakes if they were pointed out to them. Often mistakes in thinking are quite humble.
Such thinking may be quite uncritical, but is not pseudo critical thinking. Pseudo critical thinking is a form of intellectual arrogance masked in self-delusion or deception, in which thinking which is deeply flawed is not only presented as a model of excellence of thought, but is also, at the same time, sophisticated enough to take many people in.
Many pseudo critical thinking approaches present all judgments as falling into two exclusive and exhaustive categories: fact and opinion. Actually, the kind of judgment most important to educated people and the kind we most want to foster falls into a third, very important, and now almost totally ignored category, that of reasoned judgment. A judge in a court of law is expected to engage in reasoned judgment; that is, the judge is expected not only to render a judgment, but also to base that judgment on sound, relevant evidence and valid legal reasoning. A judge is not expected to base his judgments on his subjective preferences, on his personal opinions, as such. You might put it this way, judgment based on sound reasoning goes beyond, and is never to be equated with, fact alone or mere opinion alone.
“Skilled” thinking can easily be used to obfuscate rather than to clarify, to maintain a prejudice rather than to break it down, to aid in the defense of a narrow interest rather than to take into account the public good.
It is extremely important to see that intelligence and intellect can be used for ends other than those of gaining “truth” or “insight” or “knowledge.” One can learn to be cunning rather than clever, smooth rather than clear, convincing rather than rationally persuasive, articulate rather than accurate. One can become judgmental rather than gain in judgment. One can confuse confidence with knowledge at the same time that one mistakes arrogance for self-confidence. In each of these cases a counterfeit of a highly desirable trait is developed in place of that trait.
There are many people who have learned to be skilled in merely appearing to be rational and knowledgeable when, in fact, they are not. Some of these have learned to be smooth, articulate, confident, cunning, and arrogant. They lack rational judgment, but this does not dissuade them from issuing dogmatic judgments and directives. They impress and learn to control others, quite selfishly.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations.
4. Use a straw man.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer.
7. Question motives.
8. Invoke authority.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’
12. Enigmas have no solution. paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
20. False evidence.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely.
25. Vanish.
and just for wirebender and gslack. from the same blog post at Disinformation and pseudo critical thinking | Climate Etc.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, dont discuss it especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If its not reported, it didnt happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations.
4. Use a straw man.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer.
7. Question motives.
8. Invoke authority.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the high road and confess with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, just isnt so.
12. Enigmas have no solution. paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you wont have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
20. False evidence.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely.
25. Vanish.
I think wirebender and gslack are especially talented in performing 4,5,7,9,17 and 18.
but they are best at just not answering the question!
an interesting excerpt out of Pseudo Critical Thinking in the Educational Establ via Judy Curry's blog
Unfortunately, there is not simply good and bad thinking in the world, both easily recognized as such. There is also bad thinking that appears to be good and therefore wrongfully, sometimes disastrously, used as the basis of very important decisions. Very often this bad thinking is defended and rationalized in a highly sophisticated fashion. However flawed, it successfully counterfeits good thinking, and otherwise intelligent people are taken in. Such thinking is found in every dimension of human life and in every dimension it does harm; in every dimension it works against human well-being.


Sometimes when people think poorly, they do so out of simple ignorance. They are making mistakes, they dont know they are making mistakes, but they would willingly correct their mistakes if they were pointed out to them. Often mistakes in thinking are quite humble.
Such thinking may be quite uncritical, but is not pseudo critical thinking. Pseudo critical thinking is a form of intellectual arrogance masked in self-delusion or deception, in which thinking which is deeply flawed is not only presented as a model of excellence of thought, but is also, at the same time, sophisticated enough to take many people in.
Many pseudo critical thinking approaches present all judgments as falling into two exclusive and exhaustive categories: fact and opinion. Actually, the kind of judgment most important to educated people and the kind we most want to foster falls into a third, very important, and now almost totally ignored category, that of reasoned judgment. A judge in a court of law is expected to engage in reasoned judgment; that is, the judge is expected not only to render a judgment, but also to base that judgment on sound, relevant evidence and valid legal reasoning. A judge is not expected to base his judgments on his subjective preferences, on his personal opinions, as such. You might put it this way, judgment based on sound reasoning goes beyond, and is never to be equated with, fact alone or mere opinion alone.
Skilled thinking can easily be used to obfuscate rather than to clarify, to maintain a prejudice rather than to break it down, to aid in the defense of a narrow interest rather than to take into account the public good.
It is extremely important to see that intelligence and intellect can be used for ends other than those of gaining truth or insight or knowledge. One can learn to be cunning rather than clever, smooth rather than clear, convincing rather than rationally persuasive, articulate rather than accurate. One can become judgmental rather than gain in judgment. One can confuse confidence with knowledge at the same time that one mistakes arrogance for self-confidence. In each of these cases a counterfeit of a highly desirable trait is developed in place of that trait.
There are many people who have learned to be skilled in merely appearing to be rational and knowledgeable when, in fact, they are not. Some of these have learned to be smooth, articulate, confident, cunning, and arrogant. They lack rational judgment, but this does not dissuade them from issuing dogmatic judgments and directives. They impress and learn to control others, quite selfishly.
reasoned judgment; neither fact alone nor opinion alone.
pseudoscience can make a good case for itself if allowed to cherrypick what facts it wants presented, and when it can establish the opinion among many that it is reasonable and accepted. but real science must always be open to questions, no matter how awkward or uncomfortable. climate science is rotted through and through with pseudoscience. sometimes its the actual data that is screwed up, more often it is the faulty conclusions drawn up and presented as fact.
please show where I have claimed to be brilliant. wirebender put out a call to prove his math wrong. I have and yet you two refuse to admit it.
I never said you claimed it, or even said it.. I said you think it, and that is plain as day. it shows in your behavior and actions all too clearly. You have done nothing, I repeat nothing but talk shit and post googled terms. You pretend you know, but your behavior, manner, lack of knowledge, lack of everything except your pathetic big talk and deliberate attempts to confound everything you cannot disprove with a google search, tell us all the exact opposite..
Come on douchebag, you think are a genius and whats more THE GENIUS.. You show it in the way you respond to anyone who dares to show any mathematical ability or knowledge and express opinions or facts that may differ from your own. You sit back call them wrong and cite googled terms and definitions you do not understand while pretending some greater knowledge and they're so far beneath you..
You do it all the time tool, you did it with wire, then me, and now polarbear who was actually trying to clarify what he felt (by giving you the benefit of the doubt) was a simple misconception of a few of the finer points in spencers experiment. he wasn't rude, dismissive, or belittling you in any way shape or form but you had to be rude to try and cover your lack of knowledge..
What you think your act is new? HAHAHAHAHA! Dude your act is as old as web forums. Gimme a break there are so many like you on these kinds of places, every forum has at least a few of you. You talk shit and pretend to be so much above everyone else usually your types are in some kind scientific field... Coincidence? I think not.. Dr Gregg, was supposed to be a chemist and as it soon turned out he was a fraud. That was just a year ago on this very forum. We have several others trying the same act, all of it bullshit and all of it may differ slightly but still the same act.
You choose science because in your vanity you believe you can out think anyone even though you have no reason to believe it. You obviously haven't had the education for it, you most assuredly don't have the ability to think on more than one level at a time, and as far as I can see you just unjustifiably deem yourself better my right or by intellect.
You have been dismissive of everyone who dares to disagree with you. Whats that tell you Ian.. Wire, me, and now polarbear all of whom you have agreed with at times, and even shown respect for. Respect until anyone of us dare to challenge your superiority then you become a rude, arrogant, egomaniac who will do or say anything to protect his pride.. A pride which YOU have not earned. You bullshitted your way into it and did it so long you forget the reality.
Reality check Ian..
1. You are no more a physics expert or even competent student than I am a one-armed lion tamer..
2. Being the smartest guy in a room full of idiots makes you the smartest idiot, not a genius.
3. You cannot fake real knowledge. Every time you have to go into depth or detail you will ALWAYS do or say something that a perceptive person who is not easily intimidated by titles (real, implied or imagined) or claims of brilliance you have yet to show, will call you on it. Just like I did, I tested you multiple times and you failed every single one miserably..
4. There is a little white spot on top of chicken shit, and despite its pure white appearance, that part is chicken shit too. That means no matter how much you sling or how good you think your bullshit is, its still limited by the simple fact it is bullshit, and susceptible to the weakness of its originator. Meaning YOU are the weakest link in your fake internet persona. only bullshit requires a salesman, the truth just is and will stand on its own. You try to hard Ian, bullshitters always do.
5. You are internet phony nothing more. You play a part online, and thats the extent of your brilliance. And being weasel enough to talk in circles and dismiss everyone off-hand is not a win by any standard other than your own.
Ian truth is I would bet there are at least 50 people on this board I have talked to that can think rings around you. At least 20 with far superior applicable mathematical knowledge than you, and at least as many who can dance and posture better than you do. you aren't even a good second place in any area i can think of here. Except maybe being a total douchebag... Well no there are better ones than you at that too..
wow! what a rant!
just out of curiosity, what would make you put as much time and effort into discussing the topics at hand as you do in typing out ad hom smears?
