Claimed OU circuit of Rosemary Ainslie

[utilitarian]

no my goal is to keep tk HONEST and to make sure he adheres to PROPER SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and when he isn't or doesn't, i don't let him sweep it under the rug like you sycophants do. as far as his integrity, there is NOTHING that can be for that.
your comprehension skills really suck. and how do you talk with your foot in mouth like that?

and i notice you failed to provide that post i asked you about.

You have made posts claiming it is bad to deviate from the specified configuration, but you have been unable to explain why.  The reason you have been unable to give a reason, beside "um, it's different, you lying liar, you asshole - make it the same, duh" is because you cannot articulate a reason, which is, of course, because you lack the knowledge to articulate a valid reason.

You now admit the deviation is immaterial.  Which leads to the question of why you are still on this tirade.  You are worse than the "sycophants" you refer to.  The supporters at least have a clear view of the objective - to show that the Ainslie's claim is invalid.  This is a fine goal in science - all new claims purporting to overturn well established conclusions should be put to the most rigorous of tests.  Your goal is completely unfathomable.  TK has probably done more experiments with this stuff in one day than you have done your entire life.  You admit you cannot prove that TK has made any error in his conclusions.  What the hell is left to argue about, except to spew pointless vitriol?

[WilbyInebriated]

You have made posts claiming it is bad to deviate from the specified configuration, but you have been unable to explain why.  The reason you have been unable to give a reason, beside "um, it's different, you lying liar, you asshole - make it the same, duh" is because you cannot articulate a reason, which is, of course, because you lack the knowledge to articulate a valid reason.

You now admit the deviation is immaterial.  Which leads to the question of why you are still on this tirade.  You are worse than the "sycophants" you refer to.  The supporters at least have a clear view of the objective - to show that the Ainslie's claim is invalid.  This is a fine goal in science - all new claims purporting to overturn well established conclusions should be put to the most rigorous of tests.  Your goal is completely unfathomable.  TK has probably done more experiments with this stuff in one day than you have done your entire life.  You admit you cannot prove that TK has made any error in his conclusions.  What the hell is left to argue about, except to spew pointless vitriol?

absolute lies, you can withdraw this statement immediately or i can go fetch all the relevant posts and drag you over the coals. i knew long ago the irfpg50 wouldn't perform the same as his original substitution. why do you think i played him for so long? why do you think i let him talk himself into a corner? never mind, you can't see the whole board and refuse to think a couple moves ahead. anytime you wanna play chess for $ you let me know.

i have never admitted the deviation is immaterial. can you show some evidence of your claim? this is the real world where you are accountable for your words. i have always maintained and continue to maintain that using "whatever" and claiming some data sheet similarity is NOT a replication. and WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE of my "admission"? tk has made numerous errors in his conclusions, and i have pointed most (not all, there is a few left...) of them out.


edit: i noticed you failed to provide evidence of your last asinine claim and still moved right on to the next asinine claim, which you also failed to provide evidence of.

[Asymatrix]

You have made posts claiming it is bad to deviate from the specified configuration, but you have been unable to explain why.  The reason you have been unable to give a reason, beside "um, it's different, you lying liar, you asshole - make it the same, duh" is because you cannot articulate a reason, which is, of course, because you lack the knowledge to articulate a valid reason.

You now admit the deviation is immaterial.  Which leads to the question of why you are still on this tirade.  You are worse than the "sycophants" you refer to.  The supporters at least have a clear view of the objective - to show that the Ainslie's claim is invalid.  This is a fine goal in science - all new claims purporting to overturn well established conclusions should be put to the most rigorous of tests.  Your goal is completely unfathomable.  TK has probably done more experiments with this stuff in one day than you have done your entire life.  You admit you cannot prove that TK has made any error in his conclusions.  What the hell is left to argue about, except to spew pointless vitriol?

Because, at some point, TK obviously made Wilby look extremely foolish. All he does is complain, no tests, no data, no nothing.

[WilbyInebriated]

Because, at some point, TK obviously made Wilby look extremely foolish. All he does is complain, no tests, no data, no nothing.

ohhh that's so cute. you were made to look extremely foolish by me here in this post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196861#msg196861
and this post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196863#msg196863
and this one where he himself CLEARLY demonstrates he understands the context:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196876#msg196876

and now you are trying some psychological projection...
never mind, the sycophants wouldn't understand psychology.

[utilitarian]

ohhh that's so cute. you were made to look extremely foolish by me here in this post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196861#msg196861
and this post:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196863#msg196863
and this one where he himself CLEARLY demonstrates he understands the context:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7620.msg196876#msg196876

and now you are trying some psychological projection...
never mind, the sycophants wouldn't understand psychology.

WTF, you are citing yourself?  I can barely stand to read your garbage the first time.  I am not going to revisit it.

With all this bluster, one would think you have done at least one experiment to contradict TK's findings.  One would be sadly mistaken.