Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #598829

Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking....

Show all headers | View raw

On 1/1/2023 6:06 PM, patdolan wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:55:56 PM UTC-8, whodat wrote:
>> On 1/1/2023 4:38 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-3, patdolan wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 7:02:41 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 4:12:42 PM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 2:06:18 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 12:39:08 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 11:57:35 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 9:04:45 AM UTC-8, patdolan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 3:43:01 AM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Op 31-dec.-2021 om 01:02 schreef patdolan:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 30, 2021 at 2:18:05 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> patdolan <patd...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As 2021 comes to a close I have been reflecting on my long reign as king
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this forum. True, I have neglected my subjects with long intervals of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> absence. But know that my kingdom and subjects have never been far from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> my thoughts. You will recall that I was anointed King by no less than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Androcles--God rest his soul--on only my second or third outing. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe Professor Paul was the quarry that resulted in my coronation. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> note that I have only lost two battles in this forum: the first to rotchm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding the MMX and the second to Sylvia regarding the 6' fluorescent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light and the 6' pipe...I actually lost to myself, Sylvia having thrown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up (insert pronoun) hands when the problem proved too intractable for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (insert pronoun) so I settled the matter myself in (insert pronoun)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> favor. Other than that, Bodkin, I've beaten them all: Jan, Prokary,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Python, euroHenry, Tom Roberts, T. Shubba, Dirk, etc.--all of the first
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stringers. And I can't even recall the many bench warmers I've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dispatched. I've often wondered whatever happened to toxic Uncle Al.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dono deserves special mention; and if I remember why, before I finish
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typing this, I'll tell you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is a new generation heralding in a new era to this forum
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represented by the two Richards: giga-Hertz and Hachel. They are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly scientific and philosophic ubermench. Their command of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject matter, of the math, of the history, is unmatched. They write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voluminously, indefatigably, persuasively, convincingly, cogently, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with great panache. So it is time to pass on my crown to one of them. Or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps they can come to some agreement of joint rule over the rest of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. Treat your new rulers with more respect than you did me, Bodkin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Learn from them. Discern in them that greater sense of transcendence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you, Dirk and Dono have been trying to fill by contemplating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fictitious objects you believe can be shorter or younger by virtue of their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> velocity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I expect great things from these two. I'll be checking in from time to time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s adorable that as soon as some other blowhard out-blowhards you, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you feel the attention spotlight slipping away from you, then it’s exit,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stage-left. “Waaah, no fun any more.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One of my fondest memories will be from my most recent effort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Critical Relativity Theory" when Dirk told me that I didn't know what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was talking about when I asserted ∆t'/∆x' = ∆t/∆x. Then I pointed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out to him that ∆t'/∆x' = ∆t/∆x = c is the second postulate. Dirk's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> response: crickets. This is the greatest immortal blunder ever
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> committed in this forum from what I can tell. Dirk's faith seems to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finally wavering, as witnessed by his reproof to you, Bodkin, to stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> responding to us. I have already had to re-sized my tomb stone several
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times already for my ever-growing epitaph. But I may just need one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more re-size to fit in "∆t'/∆x' = ∆t/∆x = c" as a cautionary warning
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to young physicists of the future.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are doing an ugly trump, as usual.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }} Einstein’s choice to make velocity strictly Galilean when calculating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }} the velocity between pairs of FoRs ( yes, it is a choice because it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }} does not follow from either the first or the second postulates ) can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }} be expressed mathematically as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }} ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v (1)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I responded:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } You can only write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } ∆x’/∆t’ = v
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } for events taking place on an object at rest in FoR-1, i.o.w.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } for events taking place a the same location in For-1, i.o.w.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } for events that satisfy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } ∆x = 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } You can only write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } ∆x/∆t = v
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } for events taking place on an object at rest in FoR-2, i.o.w.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } for events taking place a the same location in For-2, i.o.w.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } for events that satisfy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } ∆x' = 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } Unless v = 0 (and thus FoR-1 = FoR-2), there are no objects
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } that are at rest in both FoR-1 and FoR-2, i.o.w. there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } no distinct events that happen at the same place in both
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } FoR-1 and FoR-2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } So, yes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } 0/∆t’ = 0/∆t = 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } for all values of ∆t' and ∆t.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } A profound discovery, congratulations!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } So when you write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v ,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk Vdm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FoR-1 and FoR-2 have a relative velocity of .866c. Two observers, O-1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and O-2 are at rest with respect to, and at the origin of, their respective FoRs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What value does O-1 assign to the velocity of O-2?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What value does O-2 assign to the velocity of O-1?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Okay Dirk, let's go back to the basics. If either O-1 or O-2 wanted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the other's velocity then how would they go about doing it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can it even be done? Or is it impossible/meaningless for one to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine the other's velocity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL, here we go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So suppose we have an object A that has a velocity of 20 m/s along the
>>>>>>>>>>>> x-axis in FoR-1. That is, in FoR-1 ∆x/∆t = 20 m/s for this object. FoR-2
>>>>>>>>>>>> has a speed of 60 m/s relative to FoR-1. Let’s discuss whether the speed of
>>>>>>>>>>>> this object A has a ∆x’/∆t’ of 20 m/s or not. After all, I think you were
>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that
>>>>>>>>>>>> ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v
>>>>>>>>>>>> Want to prove that algebraically? Want to claim that it follows from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> second postulate of relativity?
>>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Bodkin, you fool. I agree with Galilean relativity.
>>>>>>>>>> Well, both Galilean relativity and Lorentz relativity agree that the
>>>>>>>>>> velocity of object A will be different in FoR-2 than it is in FoR-1. It’s
>>>>>>>>>> the amount of the velocity in FoR-2 that there’s a disagreement about. But
>>>>>>>>>> anyone who says that ∆x’/∆t’ = ∆x/∆t = v is a consequence of relativity
>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t — wait for it — know what he’s talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>> You are the one who doesn't. I am in the process of cornering
>>>>>>>>>> “Process of cornering”. Ah. This is what you mean by being the king of the
>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup. Being in the “process of cornering.” Tell me that you’re the
>>>>>>>>>> richest man in America because you’re in the “process of finding some
>>>>>>>>>> money.”
>>>>>>>>>>> Dirk using length contraction and time dilation to pull off one of my
>>>>>>>>>>> typically brilliant reductio ad absurdum. Take Bono's advise and re-read
>>>>>>>>>>> the problem. There are no velocities within FoRs as both O-1 and O-2 are
>>>>>>>>>>> at rest wrt each of their FoRs. The only velocity in the problem is the
>>>>>>>>>>> relative velocities BETWEEN the two FoRs. Try again chump.
>>>>>>>>>> That’s of course true. The velocity of the origin of FoR-1 as seen in FoR-1
>>>>>>>>>> is equal to the velocity of the origin of FoR-2 as seen in FoR-2. It’s even
>>>>>>>>>> true that the velocity of the origin of FoR-1 as seen in FoR-2 has the same
>>>>>>>>>> magnitude of velocity as the origin of FoR-2 as seen in FoR-2. This still
>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t stem from Einstein’s 2nd postulate in the 1905 paper. Try again,
>>>>>>>>>> chump.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>>>>> Thanks, I will.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Let's start here: O-1 disagrees with the length of O-2's yardstick and
>>>>>>>>> rate of O-2's clock. So how come O-1 and O-2 agree on the closing
>>>>>>>>> velocity between themselves when they can't agree on the values of the
>>>>>>>>> very constituents that make up the velocity between themselves?
>>>>>>>> You know, it’s funny how stuff like that works. It helps to actually use
>>>>>>>> the Lorentz transforms to see how the coordinates actually map and then
>>>>>>>> what the velocities become. A lot of hacks flounder around wrestling with
>>>>>>>> things like gamma factors and get themselves all tied up in knots, when if
>>>>>>>> you just do the Lorentz transforms, point by point, doing the math, it
>>>>>>>> kinda comes out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It’s kind like the velocity composition rule. A lot of hacks say, “How is
>>>>>>>> it even POSSIBLE that one velocity composition rule says that the velocity
>>>>>>>> of an object will CHANGE from one frame to the next, unless it is light,
>>>>>>>> and then it DOESN’T CHANGE?”
>>>>>>> }}}}}}
>>>>>>> The answer is pretty straightforward. Just do
>>>>>>>> the math for a few cases where v<c, then use the same equation when v=c.
>>>>>>>> Pops right out. There it is. No mystery at all.
>>>>>>> Pops right out, ahy Bodkin? Okay, Let's "Just do the math"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> O-1 and O-2 agree that they have a mutual closing velocity of .867c and
>>>>>>> that their x-axes coincide. They also agree that each is affixed to, and
>>>>>>> at rest wrt the respective origins of their frames of reference, FoR-1
>>>>>>> and FoR-2. They further agree that t = t' = 0 at the moment the origins
>>>>>>> of their FoRs coincide. Got the picture Bodkin? Good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Premise One: the rules of arithmetic
>>>>>>> Premise Two: the rules of algebra
>>>>>>> Premise Three: the second postulate of special relativity
>>>>>>> Premise Four: the Lorentz Transforms
>>>>>>> Premise Five: the Einstein Velocity Addition Formula
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be proved: O-1 and O-2 can each derive that the closing velocity (v)
>>>>>>> between themselves is identical when measure from either FoR, that is to
>>>>>>> say v = v', oiow, there is only one v for both O-1 and O-2 when it comes
>>>>>>> to the LTs and the EVAF. Oiow, both proper closing velocity and
>>>>>>> coordinate closing velocity are identical when calculated by O-1 and O-2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you onboard with the blueprint for this proof Bodkin? If not, why not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This isn’t bamboozling or mystification. It’s just putting numbers in and
>>>>>>>> seeing what you get out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> O-1 will look at O-2's yard stick and clock rate and conclude that O-2
>>>>>>>>> calculates a closing velocity gamma^2 times greater than the closing
>>>>>>>>> velocity than O-1 calculates. This can be called the coordinate closing
>>>>>>>>> velocity that O-1 calculates for O-2 along with the coordinate yardstick
>>>>>>>>> and coordinate clock rates that O-1 calculates for O-2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is that, due to the inconsistency of SR, the coordinate
>>>>>>>>> closing velocity is a factor of gamma greater than the coordinate
>>>>>>>>> yardstick and coordinate clock rate values. And so the whole thing
>>>>>>>>> collapses of algebraic inconsistency. Neither O-1 nor O-2 can agree on
>>>>>>>>> any velocity, closing or otherwise. This is the unmistakeable hallmark
>>>>>>>>> of 26 year old reasoning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Einstein's solution was to just pretend that both O-1 and O-2 measure the
>>>>>>>>> exact same value for each other's closing velocity and coordinate closing
>>>>>>>>> velocity. He offers no justification for this magical situation. He
>>>>>>>>> just declares it as a rule in much the same way that we are taught the
>>>>>>>>> a-logical rule that you can't move a negative sign under a radical--The
>>>>>>>>> only purpose of both rules is to attempt to rescue arithmetic in the
>>>>>>>>> former case, and relativity in the latter, from inconsistency by saving
>>>>>>>>> appearances. But it doesn't work in either case.
>>>>>>>> LOL. It’s hysterical that you say that the rule about moving a negative
>>>>>>>> sign under the radical is a feeble attempt to rescue arithmetic and that
>>>>>>>> the attempt is feeble because you just go ahead and do it anyway (“See? I
>>>>>>>> just did it. It’s easy. I didn’t get electrocuted.”) and think you’ve
>>>>>>>> broken arithmetic when you get a nonsense result.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You seem to be wondering why you don’t get electrocuted by arithmetic when
>>>>>>>> you do something stupid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There! I have exposed arbitrary and ad hoc Einstein "v" rule in a very
>>>>>>>>> clear and concise manner. Don't believe me? Then let me expose the
>>>>>>>>> negative sign rule for the inadequate phony obfuscation that it is, by
>>>>>>>>> circumventing it:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1^4 = i^4
>>>>>>>>> ±sqrt [ 1^4 ] = ±sqrt [ i^4 ]
>>>>>>>>> ±[ 1^2 ] = ±[ i^2 ]
>>>>>>>>> ±[ 1 ] = ±[ -1 ]
>>>>>>>>> ±[ 1 ] = ∓[ 1 ]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The "v" rule in the Lorentz transforms and the Einstein velocity
>>>>>>>>> formula fairs no better.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>> Why the hesitation, Bodkin? Are you in or are you out on this
>>>>>> proof/demonstration? If you're worried that this is a trap then please
>>>>>> rest assured that of course it's a trap from your point of view. Don't
>>>>>> try to figure a path through my minefield. You are not sophisticated
>>>>>> enough to do that. What appears as a trap to you is just the Universe
>>>>>> operating normally to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now take the shrimp out of your mouth and the lampshade off your head and respond!
>>>>>>
>>>>  From a year ago tonight:
>>>>> I note with some satisfaction that you have nothing better to do on New
>>>>> Year’s Eve but to post on Usenet and complain that nobody else seems to be
>>>>> around.
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>> I wonder what ever became of damned ol' Bodkin. He's probably trying to explain some fine point of Relativity to Einstein at this very moment.
>>>
>>> He's chopping wood and praying. Winter is harsh there.
>> I'd wager he has a lifetime supply of firewood from unsold toys and
>> tables.
> Richard and whodat(maker), are we sure that Bodkin even has need of any additional fire in the place where he might have ended up.  When you get there Dono, please tell Bodkin hello from the three of us.

Good for you, but I have no idea who "maker" is or was.

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-12-31 15:16 -0800
  Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-01 14:38 -0800
    Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-01 16:55 -0600
      Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-01 16:06 -0800
        Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-01 19:29 -0600
  Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-04 13:27 +0100
    Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-04 19:57 -0800
      Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 20:24 -0800
      Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-05 00:10 -0600
        Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-04 23:42 -0800
        Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-05 02:56 -0500
          Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-05 16:29 -0600
            Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-05 23:13 -0500
              Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 22:39 -0800
              Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2023-01-06 09:11 -0800
                Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-06 09:26 -0800
                Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-06 10:35 -0800
      Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-01-05 02:50 -0500
        Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 02:05 -0800
      Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-05 11:15 +0100
        Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-05 08:03 -0800
          Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2023-01-05 10:11 -0600
          Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 09:28 -0800
            Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-05 10:50 -0800
              Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 12:10 -0800
                Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-05 18:19 -0800
                Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 18:40 -0800
              Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2023-01-05 17:21 -0800
                Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-06 14:51 +0100
        Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2023-01-05 18:18 -0800
          Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-01-06 13:32 +0100
  Re: Bodkin, I've been thinking.... RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-01-09 14:52 -0800

csiph-web