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

Groups > sci.physics > #582302 > unrolled thread

King Tut

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:06 -0700
    King Tut john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:29 -0700
      King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 04:37 -0700
    Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 11:57 -0400
      Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 09:22 -0700
        Re: King Tut Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 09:59 -0700
          Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:29 -0700
            Re: King Tut Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 10:52 -0700
              Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:03 -0700
                Re: King Tut Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 11:21 -0700
                  Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 12:13 -0700
                    Re: King Tut Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 12:31 -0700
                      Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 13:10 -0700
                        Re: King Tut Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 13:49 -0700
                        Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:13 -0400
                  Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:09 -0400
                    Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 16:25 -0700
                      Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 20:10 -0400
                Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:06 -0400
            Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:59 -0400
          Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 13:21 -0700
            Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:14 -0400
          Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 13:21 -0700
            Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:15 -0400
          Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:56 -0400
            Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 16:19 -0700
              Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 20:09 -0400
        Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 18:45 -0400
      Re: King Tut Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-06-02 12:12 -0500
      Re: King Tut jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-02 17:41 +0000
        Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 19:04 -0400
          Re: King Tut jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-02 23:57 +0000
            Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-02 20:20 -0400
              Re: King Tut jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-03 02:28 +0000
    Re: King Tut Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-06-02 14:20 -0700
    Re: King Tut Timo <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> - 2016-06-02 20:09 -0700
      Re: King Tut "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-02 22:36 -0700
        Re: King Tut ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 01:33 -0500
        Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 03:18 -0400
          Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 04:13 -0700
            Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 09:44 -0400
              Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 07:33 -0700
                Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 10:45 -0400
          Re: King Tut "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 12:10 -0700
            Re: King Tut ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 17:13 -0500
              Re: King Tut "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 16:07 -0700
              Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-03 16:44 -0700
                Re: King Tut ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-03 19:22 -0500
                Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-04 00:00 -0400
                  Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 02:26 -0700
                    Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-04 13:44 -0400
                      Re: King Tut ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-04 13:24 -0500
                      Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 11:39 -0700
                        Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-04 23:12 -0400
                          Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 00:09 -0700
                            Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-05 12:15 -0400
              Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 23:55 -0400
                Re: King Tut ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-04 11:16 -0500
                  Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-04 14:26 -0400
                    Re: King Tut ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-04 14:52 -0500
                      Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 15:50 -0700
                        Re: King Tut ClutterFreak <ClutterFreak@FakeAddress.com> - 2016-06-04 18:29 -0500
                    Re: King Tut jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2016-06-05 02:04 +0000
            Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 23:16 -0400
            Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-03 23:44 -0400
              Re: King Tut "nuny@bid.nes" <Alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 02:01 -0700
                Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-04 13:44 -0400
                  Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-04 11:38 -0700
                    Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-04 23:12 -0400
                      Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 00:02 -0700
                        Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-05 12:13 -0400
                          Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 12:07 -0700
                            Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-06 00:53 -0400
                              Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-05 23:16 -0700
                                Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-06 10:26 -0400
                                  Re: King Tut HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-06-07 02:16 -0700
                                    Re: King Tut benj <nobodyxx@gmail> - 2016-06-07 13:23 -0400

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#582940

Custard
I'm swamped with clutter but I'm not a collector, and 
I never decorate my place. I'm utilitarian. If a 
handgun doesn't work I'm not interested in it unless I 
realize I can repair it. If it works and is too 
expensive I'm again not interested in it, cause, in a 
way, it wouldn't work for me. For me the only good 
thing about a gun is to shoot an armed psycho, an 
armed burglar, armed robber, etc with it. That' the 
only good thing I see in guns. The rest is trouble and 
danger, especially if kids are in the house. 

Samantha Koenig needed a handgun by her cash register 
to shoot Keyes in the face with. Hannah Graham needed 
a little handgun hidden inside her tight pants that 
night. 

Stuff I'm interested are not decorations, they all 
have utilitarian value to them. 

Wasn't it you few days ago who reported what had 
happened to that university professor? That professor 
needed to have a loaded gun on him... Then he might 
have survived it. I give it a good chance the psycho 
sat and talked to him for a good while before killing 
him. I give it a good chance the psycho let the 
professor know what he was about to do to him a good 
amount of time before carrying it out. The professor 
needed a gun that "works". 
-- 
    "We are at fault in not slaying the Jews." 

           - Martin Luther (hvac's "thinker") 
--------------

You're just another kook on the no fly list. Get over yourself

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582955

On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 15:50:58 -0700 (PDT), HVAC wrote:

> You're just another kook on the no fly list. Get over yourself

I understand your frustration with my view of you :)
--
     "We are at fault in not slaying the Jews."

           - Martin Luther (hvac's "thinker")

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583005

benj <nobodyxx@gmail> wrote:
> On 06/04/2016 12:16 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Jun 2016 23:55:47 -0400, benj wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/03/2016 06:13 PM, ClutterFreak wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:10:14 -0700 (PDT), nuny@bid.nes
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>     A friend and I went into a "new age store" in PHX some years
>>>>> back. They had a nine-inch or so diameter flawless crystal ball
>>>>> on sale for under twenty bucks, so I asked "why so cheap"? They
>>>>> said it was just glass, and when I told them it was quartz (and
>>>>> showed them how I knew that- you could see doubling of the images
>>>>> of stuff behind it in certain directions) they immediately raised
>>>>> the price to two hundred bucks.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if I just experienced a deja vu but its
>>>> seems to me you had said this story before.
>>>
>>> Hey CF, this may be the INTERNET, but there is no REQUIREMENT that every
>>> time you tell of an experience that the story has to be different!
>>
>> The way I could remember it was like "what's this
>> crystal ball thing these people are into? :) See I
>> wouldn't have one if you paid me. Too much clutter
>> already. You got an old little hand gun priced cheap,
>> that's a different story :)
> 
> Hey, people have all sorts of things they sit around on shelves for 
> decorator items. Crystal balls are one of them. So are old little 
> handguns. I've got a crystal ball and have looked into it, but oddly 
> unlike HVAC I've never been able to learn what people "believe" unless 
> they tell me.

Yet you continue to blather on about what you think people believe
and have done; stoned during the 60's and don't remember a thing, paid
government shill, liberal, etc, etc.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582751

On 06/03/2016 03:10 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 12:18:58 AM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>> On 06/03/2016 01:36 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:09:24 PM UTC-7, Timo wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 9:06:47 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
>>>>> The authors said the Egyptians knew what they were using. "We
>>>>> suggest that ancient Egyptian attributed great value to
>>>>> meteoritic iron for the production of fine ornamental or
>>>>> ceremonial objects," the article said
>>>>
>>>> Given that bronze is better than iron for making daggers (NB: iron
>>>> is not the same as hardened steel),
>>>
>>> Well, it was typical meteoric alloy of iron, nickel, and cobalt but
>>> had no carbon, which is what makes steel steel.
>>>
>>>> functional superiority isn't why this dagger was made from iron.
>>>> Nor was functional superiority why its partner was made from gold.
>>>> "Sky-iron" is a classy metal, used to display wealth.
>>>
>>> Rare always equals expensive, not to mention the then-important
>>> religious component of their politics.
>>>
>>>> (The gold dagger was probably the cheaper one of the pair.)
>>>
>>> Yeah, probably, but I'm sure both were intended to be ceremonial
>>> rather than functional. I especially like the rock crystal pommel on
>>> the iron one:
>>>
>>> http://swordsite.tumblr.com/post/108721846580/ancientegypt-egypt-pharoah-tutankhamen
>>
>> You sure it is quartz and not glass?
>
>    The conservators claim it is, and quartz and glass are easy to tell apart non-destructively. Quartz is doubly refractive along its optic axis but glass isn't.
>
>    A friend and I went into a "new age store" in PHX some years back. They had a nine-inch or so diameter flawless crystal ball on sale for under twenty bucks, so I asked "why so cheap"? They said it was just glass, and when I told them it was quartz (and showed them how I knew that- you could see doubling of the images of stuff behind it in certain directions) they immediately raised the price to two hundred bucks.
>
>    I felt like the engineer in the guillotine joke, but they gave me a twenty dollar gift card as a consolation prize, which I gave away.
>
>>   That would take some serious sanding.
>
>    Nah, just tedious. There are plenty of non-precious minerals harder than quartz.
>
>
>    Mark L. Fergerson
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582752

On 06/03/2016 03:10 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 12:18:58 AM UTC-7, benj wrote:
>> On 06/03/2016 01:36 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:09:24 PM UTC-7, Timo wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 9:06:47 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
>>>>> The authors said the Egyptians knew what they were using.
>>>>> "We suggest that ancient Egyptian attributed great value to
>>>>> meteoritic iron for the production of fine ornamental or
>>>>> ceremonial objects," the article said
>>>>
>>>> Given that bronze is better than iron for making daggers (NB:
>>>> iron is not the same as hardened steel),
>>>
>>> Well, it was typical meteoric alloy of iron, nickel, and cobalt
>>> but had no carbon, which is what makes steel steel.
>>>
>>>> functional superiority isn't why this dagger was made from
>>>> iron. Nor was functional superiority why its partner was made
>>>> from gold. "Sky-iron" is a classy metal, used to display
>>>> wealth.
>>>
>>> Rare always equals expensive, not to mention the then-important
>>> religious component of their politics.
>>>
>>>> (The gold dagger was probably the cheaper one of the pair.)
>>>
>>> Yeah, probably, but I'm sure both were intended to be ceremonial
>>> rather than functional. I especially like the rock crystal pommel
>>> on the iron one:
>>>
>>> http://swordsite.tumblr.com/post/108721846580/ancientegypt-egypt-pharoah-tutankhamen
>>
>>
>>>
You sure it is quartz and not glass?
>
> The conservators claim it is, and quartz and glass are easy to tell
> apart non-destructively. Quartz is doubly refractive along its optic
> axis but glass isn't.

That would e single crystal quartz. Fused quartz would not do that.
But it's still easy to test with transmission spectra.

> A friend and I went into a "new age store" in PHX some years back.
> They had a nine-inch or so diameter flawless crystal ball on sale for
> under twenty bucks, so I asked "why so cheap"? They said it was just
> glass, and when I told them it was quartz (and showed them how I knew
> that- you could see doubling of the images of stuff behind it in
> certain directions) they immediately raised the price to two hundred
> bucks.

Capitalist opportunity passing you buy, nay, boldly rejected!

Actually $200 is still VERY cheap for a flawless quartz ball of that 
size. You should have grabbed it. Rumor has it they are great ESP 
enhancers! There was some rock place going out of business years ago and 
was selling their stock of flawless quartz balls. Prices were about $200 
for maybe  a 3 or 4 incher. Prices rise astronomically as size 
increases. Which brings up the story that I once did a road trip to the 
Philadelphia museum to peruse the Mayan stelae there. Well, one of the 
VERY cool exhibits (having nothing to do with Maya) was the crystal ball 
made for the dowager empress of china (about 1900 or so) It was HUGE, 
single crystal flawless quartz maybe 12-14" in diameter ground into a 
perfect sphere. A tour was coming through and the guide showed how the 
sphere was so perfect you see the light directly over it at the point at 
the bottom of the sphere. Anyway that was MANY years ago and maybe a 
year or two ago I read in the papers that the museum had a break in and 
that crystal ball was one of the things taken. They've never found it.

Someone gave me a quartz crystal ball once but it's only 2" or so in 
diameter and filled with flaws. (flaws prevent me from learning what 
people really believe!)

> I felt like the engineer in the guillotine joke, but they gave me a
> twenty dollar gift card as a consolation prize, which I gave away.
>
>> That would take some serious sanding.
>
> Nah, just tedious. There are plenty of non-precious minerals harder
> than quartz.

Tedious is the word alright. I've done some quartz carving and it's 
seriously tough stuff and I was using modern tools not rubbing it with 
sand or whatever the Egyptians did.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582782

On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 8:45:00 PM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> On 06/03/2016 03:10 PM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 12:18:58 AM UTC-7, benj wrote:
> >> On 06/03/2016 01:36 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:09:24 PM UTC-7, Timo wrote:
> >>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 9:06:47 PM UTC+10, HVAC wrote:
> >>>>> The authors said the Egyptians knew what they were using.
> >>>>> "We suggest that ancient Egyptian attributed great value to
> >>>>> meteoritic iron for the production of fine ornamental or
> >>>>> ceremonial objects," the article said
> >>>>
> >>>> Given that bronze is better than iron for making daggers (NB:
> >>>> iron is not the same as hardened steel),
> >>>
> >>> Well, it was typical meteoric alloy of iron, nickel, and cobalt
> >>> but had no carbon, which is what makes steel steel.
> >>>
> >>>> functional superiority isn't why this dagger was made from
> >>>> iron. Nor was functional superiority why its partner was made
> >>>> from gold. "Sky-iron" is a classy metal, used to display
> >>>> wealth.
> >>>
> >>> Rare always equals expensive, not to mention the then-important
> >>> religious component of their politics.
> >>>
> >>>> (The gold dagger was probably the cheaper one of the pair.)
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, probably, but I'm sure both were intended to be ceremonial
> >>> rather than functional. I especially like the rock crystal pommel
> >>> on the iron one:
> >>>
> >>> http://swordsite.tumblr.com/post/108721846580/ancientegypt-egypt-pharoah-tutankhamen
> >>>
> You sure it is quartz and not glass?
> >
> > The conservators claim it is, and quartz and glass are easy to tell
> > apart non-destructively. Quartz is doubly refractive along its optic
> > axis but glass isn't.
> 
> That would e single crystal quartz. Fused quartz would not do that.
> But it's still easy to test with transmission spectra.

  Yeah, rock crystal = single (or twinned etc.) crystal quartz.

> > A friend and I went into a "new age store" in PHX some years back.
> > They had a nine-inch or so diameter flawless crystal ball on sale for
> > under twenty bucks, so I asked "why so cheap"? They said it was just
> > glass, and when I told them it was quartz (and showed them how I knew
> > that- you could see doubling of the images of stuff behind it in
> > certain directions) they immediately raised the price to two hundred
> > bucks.
> 
> Capitalist opportunity passing you buy, nay, boldly rejected!

  It didn't even enter my mind. As I said below I felt like the engineer in the guillotine joke afterward, and don't make me tell it again.

> Actually $200 is still VERY cheap for a flawless quartz ball of that 
> size. You should have grabbed it.

  Well, I didn't really want one, it was just interesting to me that they thought it was glass.

  Cheap now but average back then- this was thirty or so years ago and that was all the new age niche market of the day would bear.

> Rumor has it they are great ESP 
> enhancers! There was some rock place going out of business years ago and 
> was selling their stock of flawless quartz balls. Prices were about $200 
> for maybe  a 3 or 4 incher. Prices rise astronomically as size 
> increases.

  More if they have antique provenance- I live in a town full of antique shops and some of the stuff they carry... but again, it depends on demand. I can't afford any of the glassware people come from literally hundreds of miles away to peruse (one shop specializes in uranium glass) but I snatched up a 1950's violet ray machine that works (which is to say the Oudin coil still puts out a solid 40KV at ~5 mA) for ten bucks.

> Which brings up the story that I once did a road trip to the 
> Philadelphia museum to peruse the Mayan stelae there. Well, one of the 
> VERY cool exhibits (having nothing to do with Maya) was the crystal ball 
> made for the dowager empress of china (about 1900 or so) It was HUGE, 
> single crystal flawless quartz maybe 12-14" in diameter ground into a 
> perfect sphere. A tour was coming through and the guide showed how the 
> sphere was so perfect you see the light directly over it at the point at 
> the bottom of the sphere. Anyway that was MANY years ago and maybe a 
> year or two ago I read in the papers that the museum had a break in and 
> that crystal ball was one of the things taken. They've never found it.

  I vaguely recall something about that. The same ancient techniques are used today to make such spheres but apparently the easy-to-get-to large-chunk quartz has been mined out. I have nothing against good clean synthetics though; just as pretty.

  Right now I have some ADP slowly growing in a jar in my basement.

> Someone gave me a quartz crystal ball once but it's only 2" or so in 
> diameter and filled with flaws. (flaws prevent me from learning what 
> people really believe!)

  I've got one like that, and not necessarily according to some. I've gotten no results at all though. I think we've discussed this; you may remember me concluding I'm blind to such things.

> > I felt like the engineer in the guillotine joke, but they gave me a
> > twenty dollar gift card as a consolation prize, which I gave away.
> >
> >> That would take some serious sanding.
> >
> > Nah, just tedious. There are plenty of non-precious minerals harder
> > than quartz.
> 
> Tedious is the word alright. I've done some quartz carving and it's 
> seriously tough stuff and I was using modern tools not rubbing it with 
> sand or whatever the Egyptians did.

  Before I bought my first CRC I once made the error of thinking I could get away with a diamond grit Dremel bit under water. Turned out I had the rate-of-material-removal vs. heat-removal-rate ratio figured too optimistically.

  I wound up making two pieces instead of the one I originally had in mind.

  Oh well, live and learn.


  Mark L. Fergerson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582843

On 06/04/2016 05:01 AM, nuny@bid.nes wrote:
>
> More if they have antique provenance- I live in a town full of
> antique shops and some of the stuff they carry... but again, it
> depends on demand. I can't afford any of the glassware people come
> from literally hundreds of miles away to peruse (one shop specializes
> in uranium glass) but I snatched up a 1950's violet ray machine that
> works (which is to say the Oudin coil still puts out a solid 40KV at
> ~5 mA) for ten bucks.

Yes, I have a serious collection of quack machines!  There is this 
antique mall down the street and one of the vendors somehow used to get 
his hands on them all the time. And given that the only market is to 
"kooks and nerds" prices were very low. Hence, every time a cool one 
showed up, I'd end up with it. I've got them from huge floor models to 
popular "violet ray" ones like yours complete with original manual 
describing how to cure "brain fag" and the like!  I've got some I've 
seen pictures of in science history books (though mine are missing a 
couple of parts) Virtually all of my quack machines still work! They 
don't build things like they used to! Speaking of which I've got this 
1920's RCA radio on the wall as a decorator item and the other day I 
turned it on just for grins. It still plays fine! Compare that to the 
pile of dead computers in my basement some of which are just a few years 
old.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#582871

BJ quacked
Yes, I have a serious collection of quack machines!  There is this 
antique mall down the street and one of the vendors somehow used to get 
his hands on them all the time. And given that the only market is to 
"kooks and nerds" prices were very low. Hence, every time a cool one 
showed up, I'd end up with it. I've got them from huge floor models to 
popular "violet ray" ones like yours complete with original manual 
describing how to cure "brain fag" -----------

It didn't work. Ask for your money back

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583032

On 06/04/2016 02:38 PM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> Yes, I have a serious collection of quack machines!  There is this
> antique mall down the street and one of the vendors somehow used to get
> his hands on them all the time. And given that the only market is to
> "kooks and nerds" prices were very low. Hence, every time a cool one
> showed up, I'd end up with it. I've got them from huge floor models to
> popular "violet ray" ones like yours complete with original manual
> describing how to cure "brain fag" -----------
>
> It didn't work. Ask for your money back

How do you know it didn't work? I don't even know what "brain fag" is. 
Perhaps you could explain it to us?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583075

BJ quacked 
> Yes, I have a serious collection of quack machines!  There is this 
> antique mall down the street and one of the vendors somehow used to get 
> his hands on them all the time. And given that the only market is to 
> "kooks and nerds" prices were very low. Hence, every time a cool one 
> showed up, I'd end up with it. I've got them from huge floor models to 
> popular "violet ray" ones like yours complete with original manual 
> describing how to cure "brain fag"
----------- 
> 
> It didn't work. Ask for your money back 

How do you know it didn't work? I don't even know what "brain fag" is. 
Perhaps you could explain it to us?
--------------

It's simple. 'Brain fag' means brain fatigue. In other words, a kook. Since you are still a kook, and one may even argue a kook of the first water, the machine failed in its primary purpose.

Seek a refund and go with Christ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583116

On 06/05/2016 03:02 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
>> Yes, I have a serious collection of quack machines!  There is this
>> antique mall down the street and one of the vendors somehow used to get
>> his hands on them all the time. And given that the only market is to
>> "kooks and nerds" prices were very low. Hence, every time a cool one
>> showed up, I'd end up with it. I've got them from huge floor models to
>> popular "violet ray" ones like yours complete with original manual
>> describing how to cure "brain fag"
> -----------
>>
>> It didn't work. Ask for your money back
>
> How do you know it didn't work? I don't even know what "brain fag" is.
> Perhaps you could explain it to us?
> --------------
>
> It's simple. 'Brain fag' means brain fatigue. In other words, a kook. Since you are still a kook, and one may even argue a kook of the first water, the machine failed in its primary purpose.
>
> Seek a refund and go with Christ

So in your science anyone with brain fatigue is a kook?

Does your brain ever get fatigued? Does that then make you a kook?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583160

BJ quacked
So in your science anyone with brain fatigue is a kook? 
----------

No. YOU are a kook 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583261

On 06/05/2016 03:07 PM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> So in your science anyone with brain fatigue is a kook?
> ----------
>
> No. YOU are a kook

So now you deny that anyone with brain fatigue is a kook when you just 
previous made that statement. Do you believe that when you make 
contradictory statements that both are true?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583276

BJ quacked
So now you deny that anyone with brain fatigue is a kook when you just 
previous made that statement. Do you believe that when you make 
contradictory statements that both are true? 
---------

Both what are true?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583336

On 06/06/2016 02:16 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> So now you deny that anyone with brain fatigue is a kook when you just
> previous made that statement. Do you believe that when you make
> contradictory statements that both are true?
> ---------
>
> Both what are true?
>
I'm sorry but Maple Loops won't let me come out and play today.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583510

BJ quacked
I'm sorry but Maple Loops won't let me come out and play today. 
---------

Apology accepted

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#583592

On 06/07/2016 05:16 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ quacked
> I'm sorry but Maple Loops won't let me come out and play today.
> ---------
>
> Apology accepted
>
I'm sorry but Maple Loops won't let me come out and play today.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web