On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 6:57:04 AM UTC-8, old fart clown Richard Hertz wrote:
> Ed is after his 6th., and is 85.

All his "books" are pure garbage. You should start following his example and write "books" of your own. For our entertainment, old fart clown.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Being 85 doesn’t give anyone license to be a bonehead.
>>
>> And moreover, people like you don’t come here to say things and be left
>> alone. You come here to get much craved attention and you’re willing to say
>> just about anything to increase the volume of the response.
>
> Bodkin, the 1,000 post/year man talking about attention craving, who
> enters in a personal crisis if the response ration
> isn't above 20%.

Don’t project.

> Ridicule reply of yours, considering that you almost never initiates a
> thread, but need to "contribute"
> with insights at almost 100% of the threads, no matter the topic.
>
> At least, I focus on my own ideas, mostly on my OP.

Yes you do, precisely my point. You feel you have more to say that is
interesting than is actually so.

> You need stimulus to participate, because you're afraid to make the first step.

Not afraid at all. I’m just not so self-absorbed that I think that every
one of my original thoughts is worth sharing. In contrast….

>
> Still with a childish attitude that probably has guided your entire life.
> You're a follower only, aren't you? Like when at high school or college.
>
> And about this particular thread, I visited Ed's site, and I think that
> he's creative in his own way,

Is this a creative writing outlet? Is this alt.soapbox.pay.attention?

> Also persistent as anyone with an
> objective should be to reach the desired end. Never surrender, never give up.
>
> How many books have you written, Bodkin? Ed is after his 6th., and is 85.
> You should learn a little from him and stop mocking at his posts.

Right, I know he’s written books, and self-published them. Has he sold any
copies? That is, does anybody else think his stuff is valuable? Even at the
$3 price?

This is the same thing that others here did: Ken Seto, Robert Winn, about a
half dozen others. They’ve felt like they’ve had something to say, enough
to self-publish, but with sales in 1- or 2-digit counts, and they are
mystified why their brilliant contributions aren’t consumed like wildfire.

Seto, for example, devoted all his savings into a book, and he now openly
lists his address as a home for the infirm and indigent. He says he is
happy to have expended his retirement money “to advance science”. Except of
course he’s the only person on the planet that thinks his ideas do anything
to advance science. This is a path to personal ruin. You celebrate it for
its “creativity”. I disparage it for being pointless self-delusion to feed
his own ego.

And you with your appetite for making “original posts” that have NO VALUE
other than what YOU perceive (echoing “to advance science) are the target
for the same reason. In fact in your case, you ADMIT that a lot of what you
say you KNOW to be false and invented, just to generate a response. That is
called TROLLING, and I don’t know why anyone would think that trolling
should be celebrated.

>
> It's almost the same with the other assholes like Moroney and Dirk. It's
> if they are looking for revenge after being bullied all their life.
>
> And I see that your business is expanding. How much do you charge for a
> table of regular size, for dinner?

There is no “regular size”. And it will depend on wood, finish, inlays,
carved features, shape, whether there are joints and leaves, the
configuration of the legs, whether you want matching chairs and how many,
and a few other things. I’ve sold dining sets for as little as $600 and as
high as $12,000. How much will the revenue from your self-published book
cover?

>
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:21:26 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Being 85 doesn’t give anyone license to be a bonehead.
> >>
> >> And moreover, people like you don’t come here to say things and be left
> >> alone. You come here to get much craved attention and you’re willing to say
> >> just about anything to increase the volume of the response.
> >
> > Bodkin, the 1,000 post/year man talking about attention craving, who
> > enters in a personal crisis if the response ration
> > isn't above 20%.
> Don’t project.
> > Ridicule reply of yours, considering that you almost never initiates a
> > thread, but need to "contribute"
> > with insights at almost 100% of the threads, no matter the topic.
> >
> > At least, I focus on my own ideas, mostly on my OP.
> Yes you do, precisely my point. You feel you have more to say that is
> interesting than is actually so.
> > You need stimulus to participate, because you're afraid to make the first step.
> Not afraid at all. I’m just not so self-absorbed that I think that every
> one of my original thoughts is worth sharing. In contrast….
> >
> > Still with a childish attitude that probably has guided your entire life.
> > You're a follower only, aren't you? Like when at high school or college..
> >
> > And about this particular thread, I visited Ed's site, and I think that
> > he's creative in his own way,
> Is this a creative writing outlet? Is this alt.soapbox.pay.attention?
> > Also persistent as anyone with an
> > objective should be to reach the desired end. Never surrender, never give up.
> >
> > How many books have you written, Bodkin? Ed is after his 6th., and is 85.
> > You should learn a little from him and stop mocking at his posts.
> Right, I know he’s written books, and self-published them. Has he sold any
> copies? That is, does anybody else think his stuff is valuable? Even at the
> $3 price?
>
> This is the same thing that others here did: Ken Seto, Robert Winn, about a
> half dozen others. They’ve felt like they’ve had something to say, enough
> to self-publish, but with sales in 1- or 2-digit counts, and they are
> mystified why their brilliant contributions aren’t consumed like wildfire.
>
> Seto, for example, devoted all his savings into a book, and he now openly
> lists his address as a home for the infirm and indigent. He says he is
> happy to have expended his retirement money “to advance science”. Except of
> course he’s the only person on the planet that thinks his ideas do anything
> to advance science. This is a path to personal ruin. You celebrate it for
> its “creativity”. I disparage it for being pointless self-delusion to feed
> his own ego.
>
> And you with your appetite for making “original posts” that have NO VALUE
> other than what YOU perceive (echoing “to advance science) are the target
> for the same reason. In fact in your case, you ADMIT that a lot of what you
> say you KNOW to be false and invented, just to generate a response. That is
> called TROLLING, and I don’t know why anyone would think that trolling
> should be celebrated.
> >
> > It's almost the same with the other assholes like Moroney and Dirk. It's
> > if they are looking for revenge after being bullied all their life.
> >
> > And I see that your business is expanding. How much do you charge for a
> > table of regular size, for dinner?
> There is no “regular size”. And it will depend on wood, finish, inlays,
> carved features, shape, whether there are joints and leaves, the
> configuration of the legs, whether you want matching chairs and how many,
> and a few other things. I’ve sold dining sets for as little as $600 and as
> high as $12,000. How much will the revenue from your self-published book
> cover?
> >
> >> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You could write a book about the craft of woodworking and make it available free of charge, online, for the advancement of
artisanal woodworking science (and I'm not making fun of you. I have a lot of respect for such art, which I tried and failed).

Instead, and only with the intention of helping others in the telecom industry, I wrote a manual about 12 key points in the
professional world of telecommunications industry, and I put it online for downloading it free of charge. I used a pseudonymous
because I'm not interested in publicity. I used several spanish forums to announce my offering, and it was downloaded about 300 times.

Through my spanish nick mail, which I posted (mandatory) I received several contributions to enhance it and, also, many thanks. Such
material wasn't available for this region with the quality and depth required for public telecom networks. 2/3 of the manual was
devoted to mobile telephony (1G through 4G). It was so because I firmly believe that HISTORY of science and technology is very important
for the enrichment of the mind of students, so they can FIRMLY understand why we are here with a 50 years timeline behind.

I tried scify, with a draft of 200 pages about synchronicity and telepathy (drama like style) and another draft of 150 pages about the drama
of a lonely space traveler orbiting Earth, who's losing its mind because of uncontrollable thoughts about death in space grow out within
him, until he collapses causing a self-induced, self-accomplished prophecy. Nobody on ground station could help him in any way. But I recognized that I'm not talented to write something almost perfect, so the work went to a box with other docs in my storage place.

I know my limits on my talents, like in music composition, on which I proved my lack of talent (and passion, like for writing fiction).

And because of the above, I have a LOT OF RESPECT for people with PASSION seeking the required TALENT to produce ANYTHING.

Now, if the final product doesn't meet other people's expectations, is not for me to JUDGE the value of such product IF, and ONLY IF,
it's declared as an amateur job AND the author recognize his/her background and DON'T PRETEND to be above others.

Now, filter Einstein reality with the above, and do the same with Ed's products.

He's not calling others IDIOTS because THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, as Einstein did all the time.

Or he is not in the hunt of "idiots under my perspective", like the FUCKING RETARDED Dirk did/do, based on unknown faculties
that habilitated him to judge others at this site. Dirk has the attitude of an arrogant with a micropenis, who mocks other's sizes.
A compensation for the torture within his broken mind, perhaps.

You, Odd Bodkin, are dangerously close to Dirk's fate, as time pass by.

Don't judge so vehemently and so easily. KARMA. We have a saying: "No escupas para arriba". close to "Don't spit up."

You recognized your lack of passion for your former job, and you're trying a new one.

Ed worked his entire active life being a productive person. Let him endulge his golden years pursuing HIS passions, which he only
try to communicate to others.

SHOW SOME RESPECT AND COMPREHENSION FOR OTHERS, YOU ASSHOLES. Remember: Karma is a bitch (verified for 100,000 years).

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:21:26 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Being 85 doesn’t give anyone license to be a bonehead.
>>>>
>>>> And moreover, people like you don’t come here to say things and be left
>>>> alone. You come here to get much craved attention and you’re willing to say
>>>> just about anything to increase the volume of the response.
>>>
>>> Bodkin, the 1,000 post/year man talking about attention craving, who
>>> enters in a personal crisis if the response ration
>>> isn't above 20%.
>> Don’t project.
>>> Ridicule reply of yours, considering that you almost never initiates a
>>> thread, but need to "contribute"
>>> with insights at almost 100% of the threads, no matter the topic.
>>>
>>> At least, I focus on my own ideas, mostly on my OP.
>> Yes you do, precisely my point. You feel you have more to say that is
>> interesting than is actually so.
>>> You need stimulus to participate, because you're afraid to make the first step.
>> Not afraid at all. I’m just not so self-absorbed that I think that every
>> one of my original thoughts is worth sharing. In contrast….
>>>
>>> Still with a childish attitude that probably has guided your entire life.
>>> You're a follower only, aren't you? Like when at high school or college.
>>>
>>> And about this particular thread, I visited Ed's site, and I think that
>>> he's creative in his own way,
>> Is this a creative writing outlet? Is this alt.soapbox.pay.attention?
>>> Also persistent as anyone with an
>>> objective should be to reach the desired end. Never surrender, never give up.
>>>
>>> How many books have you written, Bodkin? Ed is after his 6th., and is 85.
>>> You should learn a little from him and stop mocking at his posts.
>> Right, I know he’s written books, and self-published them. Has he sold any
>> copies? That is, does anybody else think his stuff is valuable? Even at the
>> $3 price?
>>
>> This is the same thing that others here did: Ken Seto, Robert Winn, about a
>> half dozen others. They’ve felt like they’ve had something to say, enough
>> to self-publish, but with sales in 1- or 2-digit counts, and they are
>> mystified why their brilliant contributions aren’t consumed like wildfire.
>>
>> Seto, for example, devoted all his savings into a book, and he now openly
>> lists his address as a home for the infirm and indigent. He says he is
>> happy to have expended his retirement money “to advance science”. Except of
>> course he’s the only person on the planet that thinks his ideas do anything
>> to advance science. This is a path to personal ruin. You celebrate it for
>> its “creativity”. I disparage it for being pointless self-delusion to feed
>> his own ego.
>>
>> And you with your appetite for making “original posts” that have NO VALUE
>> other than what YOU perceive (echoing “to advance science) are the target
>> for the same reason. In fact in your case, you ADMIT that a lot of what you
>> say you KNOW to be false and invented, just to generate a response. That is
>> called TROLLING, and I don’t know why anyone would think that trolling
>> should be celebrated.
>>>
>>> It's almost the same with the other assholes like Moroney and Dirk. It's
>>> if they are looking for revenge after being bullied all their life.
>>>
>>> And I see that your business is expanding. How much do you charge for a
>>> table of regular size, for dinner?
>> There is no “regular size”. And it will depend on wood, finish, inlays,
>> carved features, shape, whether there are joints and leaves, the
>> configuration of the legs, whether you want matching chairs and how many,
>> and a few other things. I’ve sold dining sets for as little as $600 and as
>> high as $12,000. How much will the revenue from your self-published book
>> cover?
>>>
>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> You could write a book about the craft of woodworking and make it
> available free of charge, online, for the advancement of
> artisanal woodworking science (and I'm not making fun of you. I have a
> lot of respect for such art, which I tried and failed).

I also have a lot of respect for artisanal woodworking, which is why I know
a book is not the way to train people on the craft. Apprenticing is. Books
are largely a waste of time in this arena.

>
> Instead, and only with the intention of helping others in the telecom
> industry, I wrote a manual about 12 key points in the
> professional world of telecommunications industry, and I put it online
> for downloading it free of charge. I used a pseudonymous
> because I'm not interested in publicity. I used several spanish forums to
> announce my offering, and it was downloaded about 300 times.

Good for you. Notice this is a subject you knew something about, and even
something you received training on and had plenty of professional practice
with.

This marks a key difference from what Ed Lake and Ken Seto are doing. They
are self-publishing on subjects they know nothing about, have had no
training on at all, and certainly no professional experience with. The
reason they have no consumption of their books (for fee or free) is because
they are OBVIOUSLY know-nothing pretenders who are claiming that the
experts are all wrong.

>
> Through my spanish nick mail, which I posted (mandatory) I received
> several contributions to enhance it and, also, many thanks. Such
> material wasn't available for this region with the quality and depth
> required for public telecom networks. 2/3 of the manual was
> devoted to mobile telephony (1G through 4G). It was so because I firmly
> believe that HISTORY of science and technology is very important
> for the enrichment of the mind of students, so they can FIRMLY understand
> why we are here with a 50 years timeline behind.
>
> I tried scify, with a draft of 200 pages about synchronicity and
> telepathy (drama like style) and another draft of 150 pages about the drama
> of a lonely space traveler orbiting Earth, who's losing its mind because
> of uncontrollable thoughts about death in space grow out within
> him, until he collapses causing a self-induced, self-accomplished
> prophecy. Nobody on ground station could help him in any way. But I
> recognized that I'm not talented to write something almost perfect, so
> the work went to a box with other docs in my storage place.

And that self awareness and restraint is precisely what Ed and Ken and a
number of others lack. Ask Ken why he thinks his stuff is important
physics, despite not knowing what the words even mean, and he’ll say
“because I’m gifted.” Ed will say, “because I’m an Analyst”. It’s that
total lack of self awareness that is laughable.

>
> I know my limits on my talents, like in music composition, on which I
> proved my lack of talent (and passion, like for writing fiction).
>
> And because of the above, I have a LOT OF RESPECT for people with PASSION
> seeking the required TALENT to produce ANYTHING.

Great! Now notice that neither Ed nor Ken will seek to develop those
talents. They won’t work through even introductory physics course materials
and they dismiss mathematics as being wholly unnecessary and even
counterproductive. Because they have no interest in developing any skill
they don’t already have.

>
> Now, if the final product doesn't meet other people's expectations, is
> not for me to JUDGE the value of such product IF, and ONLY IF,
> it's declared as an amateur job AND the author recognize his/her
> background and DON'T PRETEND to be above others.
>
> Now, filter Einstein reality with the above, and do the same with Ed's products.
>
> He's not calling others IDIOTS because THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, as Einstein did all the time.

On the contrary, Ed calls most physicists “mathematicians” who have lost
contact with reality. Ken regards physicists as failures. Robert Winn
thinks physicists are the scourge of the earth and the source of most evil.
You have said they are parasites on society.

Don’t condemn that which you do.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Remember that karma is a bitch. Remember, while you are able to, about KARMA.

Karma...what's that?

What's ..."that"?

What thing is that?

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 3:28:10 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:21:26 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>> Being 85 doesn’t give anyone license to be a bonehead.
> >>>>
> >>>> And moreover, people like you don’t come here to say things and be left
> >>>> alone. You come here to get much craved attention and you’re willing to say
> >>>> just about anything to increase the volume of the response.
> >>>
> >>> Bodkin, the 1,000 post/year man talking about attention craving, who
> >>> enters in a personal crisis if the response ration
> >>> isn't above 20%.
> >> Don’t project.
> >>> Ridicule reply of yours, considering that you almost never initiates a
> >>> thread, but need to "contribute"
> >>> with insights at almost 100% of the threads, no matter the topic.
> >>>
> >>> At least, I focus on my own ideas, mostly on my OP.
> >> Yes you do, precisely my point. You feel you have more to say that is
> >> interesting than is actually so.
> >>> You need stimulus to participate, because you're afraid to make the first step.
> >> Not afraid at all. I’m just not so self-absorbed that I think that every
> >> one of my original thoughts is worth sharing. In contrast….
> >>>
> >>> Still with a childish attitude that probably has guided your entire life.
> >>> You're a follower only, aren't you? Like when at high school or college.
> >>>
> >>> And about this particular thread, I visited Ed's site, and I think that
> >>> he's creative in his own way,
> >> Is this a creative writing outlet? Is this alt.soapbox.pay.attention?
> >>> Also persistent as anyone with an
> >>> objective should be to reach the desired end. Never surrender, never give up.
> >>>
> >>> How many books have you written, Bodkin? Ed is after his 6th., and is 85.
> >>> You should learn a little from him and stop mocking at his posts.
> >> Right, I know he’s written books, and self-published them. Has he sold any
> >> copies? That is, does anybody else think his stuff is valuable? Even at the
> >> $3 price?
> >>
> >> This is the same thing that others here did: Ken Seto, Robert Winn, about a
> >> half dozen others. They’ve felt like they’ve had something to say, enough
> >> to self-publish, but with sales in 1- or 2-digit counts, and they are
> >> mystified why their brilliant contributions aren’t consumed like wildfire.
> >>
> >> Seto, for example, devoted all his savings into a book, and he now openly
> >> lists his address as a home for the infirm and indigent. He says he is
> >> happy to have expended his retirement money “to advance science”. Except of
> >> course he’s the only person on the planet that thinks his ideas do anything
> >> to advance science. This is a path to personal ruin. You celebrate it for
> >> its “creativity”. I disparage it for being pointless self-delusion to feed
> >> his own ego.
> >>
> >> And you with your appetite for making “original posts” that have NO VALUE
> >> other than what YOU perceive (echoing “to advance science) are the target
> >> for the same reason. In fact in your case, you ADMIT that a lot of what you
> >> say you KNOW to be false and invented, just to generate a response. That is
> >> called TROLLING, and I don’t know why anyone would think that trolling
> >> should be celebrated.
> >>>
> >>> It's almost the same with the other assholes like Moroney and Dirk. It's
> >>> if they are looking for revenge after being bullied all their life.
> >>>
> >>> And I see that your business is expanding. How much do you charge for a
> >>> table of regular size, for dinner?
> >> There is no “regular size”. And it will depend on wood, finish, inlays,
> >> carved features, shape, whether there are joints and leaves, the
> >> configuration of the legs, whether you want matching chairs and how many,
> >> and a few other things. I’ve sold dining sets for as little as $600 and as
> >> high as $12,000. How much will the revenue from your self-published book
> >> cover?
> >>>
> >>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
> > You could write a book about the craft of woodworking and make it
> > available free of charge, online, for the advancement of
> > artisanal woodworking science (and I'm not making fun of you. I have a
> > lot of respect for such art, which I tried and failed).
> I also have a lot of respect for artisanal woodworking, which is why I know
> a book is not the way to train people on the craft. Apprenticing is. Books
> are largely a waste of time in this arena.
> >
> > Instead, and only with the intention of helping others in the telecom
> > industry, I wrote a manual about 12 key points in the
> > professional world of telecommunications industry, and I put it online
> > for downloading it free of charge. I used a pseudonymous
> > because I'm not interested in publicity. I used several spanish forums to
> > announce my offering, and it was downloaded about 300 times.
> Good for you. Notice this is a subject you knew something about, and even
> something you received training on and had plenty of professional practice
> with.
>
> This marks a key difference from what Ed Lake and Ken Seto are doing. They
> are self-publishing on subjects they know nothing about, have had no
> training on at all, and certainly no professional experience with. The
> reason they have no consumption of their books (for fee or free) is because
> they are OBVIOUSLY know-nothing pretenders who are claiming that the
> experts are all wrong.
> >
> > Through my spanish nick mail, which I posted (mandatory) I received
> > several contributions to enhance it and, also, many thanks. Such
> > material wasn't available for this region with the quality and depth
> > required for public telecom networks. 2/3 of the manual was
> > devoted to mobile telephony (1G through 4G). It was so because I firmly
> > believe that HISTORY of science and technology is very important
> > for the enrichment of the mind of students, so they can FIRMLY understand
> > why we are here with a 50 years timeline behind.
> >
> > I tried scify, with a draft of 200 pages about synchronicity and
> > telepathy (drama like style) and another draft of 150 pages about the drama
> > of a lonely space traveler orbiting Earth, who's losing its mind because
> > of uncontrollable thoughts about death in space grow out within
> > him, until he collapses causing a self-induced, self-accomplished
> > prophecy. Nobody on ground station could help him in any way. But I
> > recognized that I'm not talented to write something almost perfect, so
> > the work went to a box with other docs in my storage place.
> And that self awareness and restraint is precisely what Ed and Ken and a
> number of others lack. Ask Ken why he thinks his stuff is important
> physics, despite not knowing what the words even mean, and he’ll say
> “because I’m gifted.” Ed will say, “because I’m an Analyst”. It’s that
> total lack of self awareness that is laughable.
> >
> > I know my limits on my talents, like in music composition, on which I
> > proved my lack of talent (and passion, like for writing fiction).
> >
> > And because of the above, I have a LOT OF RESPECT for people with PASSION
> > seeking the required TALENT to produce ANYTHING.
> Great! Now notice that neither Ed nor Ken will seek to develop those
> talents. They won’t work through even introductory physics course materials
> and they dismiss mathematics as being wholly unnecessary and even
> counterproductive. Because they have no interest in developing any skill
> they don’t already have.
> >
> > Now, if the final product doesn't meet other people's expectations, is
> > not for me to JUDGE the value of such product IF, and ONLY IF,
> > it's declared as an amateur job AND the author recognize his/her
> > background and DON'T PRETEND to be above others.
> >
> > Now, filter Einstein reality with the above, and do the same with Ed's products.
> >
> > He's not calling others IDIOTS because THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, as Einstein did all the time.
> On the contrary, Ed calls most physicists “mathematicians” who have lost
> contact with reality. Ken regards physicists as failures. Robert Winn
> thinks physicists are the scourge of the earth and the source of most evil.
> You have said they are parasites on society.
>
> Don’t condemn that which you do.
> >
> > Or he is not in the hunt of "idiots under my perspective", like the
> > FUCKING RETARDED Dirk did/do, based on unknown faculties
> > that habilitated him to judge others at this site. Dirk has the attitude
> > of an arrogant with a micropenis, who mocks other's sizes.
> > A compensation for the torture within his broken mind, perhaps.
> >
> > You, Odd Bodkin, are dangerously close to Dirk's fate, as time pass by.
> >
> > Don't judge so vehemently and so easily. KARMA. We have a saying: "No
> > escupas para arriba". close to "Don't spit up."
> >
> > You recognized your lack of passion for your former job, and you're trying a new one.
> >
> > Ed worked his entire active life being a productive person. Let him
> > endulge his golden years pursuing HIS passions, which he only
> > try to communicate to others.
> >
> > SHOW SOME RESPECT AND COMPREHENSION FOR OTHERS, YOU ASSHOLES. Remember:
> > Karma is a bitch (verified for 100,000 years).
> >
> How about you show some respect for physicists on a physics newsgroup,
> m’kay?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 3:28:10 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:21:26 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Being 85 doesn’t give anyone license to be a bonehead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And moreover, people like you don’t come here to say things and be left
>>>>>> alone. You come here to get much craved attention and you’re willing to say
>>>>>> just about anything to increase the volume of the response.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bodkin, the 1,000 post/year man talking about attention craving, who
>>>>> enters in a personal crisis if the response ration
>>>>> isn't above 20%.
>>>> Don’t project.
>>>>> Ridicule reply of yours, considering that you almost never initiates a
>>>>> thread, but need to "contribute"
>>>>> with insights at almost 100% of the threads, no matter the topic.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least, I focus on my own ideas, mostly on my OP.
>>>> Yes you do, precisely my point. You feel you have more to say that is
>>>> interesting than is actually so.
>>>>> You need stimulus to participate, because you're afraid to make the first step.
>>>> Not afraid at all. I’m just not so self-absorbed that I think that every
>>>> one of my original thoughts is worth sharing. In contrast….
>>>>>
>>>>> Still with a childish attitude that probably has guided your entire life.
>>>>> You're a follower only, aren't you? Like when at high school or college.
>>>>>
>>>>> And about this particular thread, I visited Ed's site, and I think that
>>>>> he's creative in his own way,
>>>> Is this a creative writing outlet? Is this alt.soapbox.pay.attention?
>>>>> Also persistent as anyone with an
>>>>> objective should be to reach the desired end. Never surrender, never give up.
>>>>>
>>>>> How many books have you written, Bodkin? Ed is after his 6th., and is 85.
>>>>> You should learn a little from him and stop mocking at his posts.
>>>> Right, I know he’s written books, and self-published them. Has he sold any
>>>> copies? That is, does anybody else think his stuff is valuable? Even at the
>>>> $3 price?
>>>>
>>>> This is the same thing that others here did: Ken Seto, Robert Winn, about a
>>>> half dozen others. They’ve felt like they’ve had something to say, enough
>>>> to self-publish, but with sales in 1- or 2-digit counts, and they are
>>>> mystified why their brilliant contributions aren’t consumed like wildfire.
>>>>
>>>> Seto, for example, devoted all his savings into a book, and he now openly
>>>> lists his address as a home for the infirm and indigent. He says he is
>>>> happy to have expended his retirement money “to advance science”. Except of
>>>> course he’s the only person on the planet that thinks his ideas do anything
>>>> to advance science. This is a path to personal ruin. You celebrate it for
>>>> its “creativity”. I disparage it for being pointless self-delusion to feed
>>>> his own ego.
>>>>
>>>> And you with your appetite for making “original posts” that have NO VALUE
>>>> other than what YOU perceive (echoing “to advance science) are the target
>>>> for the same reason. In fact in your case, you ADMIT that a lot of what you
>>>> say you KNOW to be false and invented, just to generate a response. That is
>>>> called TROLLING, and I don’t know why anyone would think that trolling
>>>> should be celebrated.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's almost the same with the other assholes like Moroney and Dirk. It's
>>>>> if they are looking for revenge after being bullied all their life.
>>>>>
>>>>> And I see that your business is expanding. How much do you charge for a
>>>>> table of regular size, for dinner?
>>>> There is no “regular size”. And it will depend on wood, finish, inlays,
>>>> carved features, shape, whether there are joints and leaves, the
>>>> configuration of the legs, whether you want matching chairs and how many,
>>>> and a few other things. I’ve sold dining sets for as little as $600 and as
>>>> high as $12,000. How much will the revenue from your self-published book
>>>> cover?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>>
>>> You could write a book about the craft of woodworking and make it
>>> available free of charge, online, for the advancement of
>>> artisanal woodworking science (and I'm not making fun of you. I have a
>>> lot of respect for such art, which I tried and failed).
>> I also have a lot of respect for artisanal woodworking, which is why I know
>> a book is not the way to train people on the craft. Apprenticing is. Books
>> are largely a waste of time in this arena.
>>>
>>> Instead, and only with the intention of helping others in the telecom
>>> industry, I wrote a manual about 12 key points in the
>>> professional world of telecommunications industry, and I put it online
>>> for downloading it free of charge. I used a pseudonymous
>>> because I'm not interested in publicity. I used several spanish forums to
>>> announce my offering, and it was downloaded about 300 times.
>> Good for you. Notice this is a subject you knew something about, and even
>> something you received training on and had plenty of professional practice
>> with.
>>
>> This marks a key difference from what Ed Lake and Ken Seto are doing. They
>> are self-publishing on subjects they know nothing about, have had no
>> training on at all, and certainly no professional experience with. The
>> reason they have no consumption of their books (for fee or free) is because
>> they are OBVIOUSLY know-nothing pretenders who are claiming that the
>> experts are all wrong.
>>>
>>> Through my spanish nick mail, which I posted (mandatory) I received
>>> several contributions to enhance it and, also, many thanks. Such
>>> material wasn't available for this region with the quality and depth
>>> required for public telecom networks. 2/3 of the manual was
>>> devoted to mobile telephony (1G through 4G). It was so because I firmly
>>> believe that HISTORY of science and technology is very important
>>> for the enrichment of the mind of students, so they can FIRMLY understand
>>> why we are here with a 50 years timeline behind.
>>>
>>> I tried scify, with a draft of 200 pages about synchronicity and
>>> telepathy (drama like style) and another draft of 150 pages about the drama
>>> of a lonely space traveler orbiting Earth, who's losing its mind because
>>> of uncontrollable thoughts about death in space grow out within
>>> him, until he collapses causing a self-induced, self-accomplished
>>> prophecy. Nobody on ground station could help him in any way. But I
>>> recognized that I'm not talented to write something almost perfect, so
>>> the work went to a box with other docs in my storage place.
>> And that self awareness and restraint is precisely what Ed and Ken and a
>> number of others lack. Ask Ken why he thinks his stuff is important
>> physics, despite not knowing what the words even mean, and he’ll say
>> “because I’m gifted.” Ed will say, “because I’m an Analyst”. It’s that
>> total lack of self awareness that is laughable.
>>>
>>> I know my limits on my talents, like in music composition, on which I
>>> proved my lack of talent (and passion, like for writing fiction).
>>>
>>> And because of the above, I have a LOT OF RESPECT for people with PASSION
>>> seeking the required TALENT to produce ANYTHING.
>> Great! Now notice that neither Ed nor Ken will seek to develop those
>> talents. They won’t work through even introductory physics course materials
>> and they dismiss mathematics as being wholly unnecessary and even
>> counterproductive. Because they have no interest in developing any skill
>> they don’t already have.
>>>
>>> Now, if the final product doesn't meet other people's expectations, is
>>> not for me to JUDGE the value of such product IF, and ONLY IF,
>>> it's declared as an amateur job AND the author recognize his/her
>>> background and DON'T PRETEND to be above others.
>>>
>>> Now, filter Einstein reality with the above, and do the same with Ed's products.
>>>
>>> He's not calling others IDIOTS because THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, as
>>> Einstein did all the time.
>> On the contrary, Ed calls most physicists “mathematicians” who have lost
>> contact with reality. Ken regards physicists as failures. Robert Winn
>> thinks physicists are the scourge of the earth and the source of most evil.
>> You have said they are parasites on society.
>>
>> Don’t condemn that which you do.
>>>
>>> Or he is not in the hunt of "idiots under my perspective", like the
>>> FUCKING RETARDED Dirk did/do, based on unknown faculties
>>> that habilitated him to judge others at this site. Dirk has the attitude
>>> of an arrogant with a micropenis, who mocks other's sizes.
>>> A compensation for the torture within his broken mind, perhaps.
>>>
>>> You, Odd Bodkin, are dangerously close to Dirk's fate, as time pass by.
>>>
>>> Don't judge so vehemently and so easily. KARMA. We have a saying: "No
>>> escupas para arriba". close to "Don't spit up."
>>>
>>> You recognized your lack of passion for your former job, and you're trying a new one.
>>>
>>> Ed worked his entire active life being a productive person. Let him
>>> endulge his golden years pursuing HIS passions, which he only
>>> try to communicate to others.
>>>
>>> SHOW SOME RESPECT AND COMPREHENSION FOR OTHERS, YOU ASSHOLES. Remember:
>>> Karma is a bitch (verified for 100,000 years).
>>>
>> How about you show some respect for physicists on a physics newsgroup,
>> m’kay?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> I declare since TIME ZERO that my main intention here is to troll
> relativists and the way they (and you) worship Einstein.
>
> Since I've found a weakness on most members when it comes to troll about
> MODERN physicists (last 110 years), there you have it:
> a second point of failure in the integrity of thoughts of most people here.
>
> And, thirdly, when I detected that putting engineering above physics make
> the herd to panic and cry foul, how to miss this new target?
>
> So you have it: Einstein, relativity and engineers above physicists. Oh
> my! This is so easy to troll about it!
>
> Add some funny sense of humor and you have, almost, the portrait of the
> virtual "Richard Hertz" persona.
>
> I don't try to postulate an spare theory of my own, even when I have some
> ideas. Being a critic is much more easier than be an author.
>
> And almost everyone in the world (western, eastern) knows this. Also it's
> known that BOTH are wrong many, many times.
> But this is conceptual and exclusively personal. No person is equal to
> another one, in any aspect (to appreciate art, food, music,
> stupid theories of modern physics, call the last one as an exact hard science, etc.).
>
> Take JanPB, Dirk or Dono: they are sold into what they bought while were
> studying. And, as they are inflexible, they can't return to reason.
>
> A reasonable person, not a fanatic, can be a die hard fan of classical
> music and yet appreciate some funky music.
> A retarded fanatic (AKA relativist) would call heresy any other form of
> mathematical composition than that of
> classical music (1600-1880).
>
> Now, try to reason with such fanatic and try to show him/her that there
> is SUBJECTIVE MATHEMATICS behind any kind of music and
> tell me how does it go.
>
> Mathematics is a hard science, but advanced mathematics is not objective.
> It's subjective and depends on the tools, the background
> and the boundaries of applicability behind any expression or any sub-theory.
>
> There even two or more different theories that allow to reach the same
> final result. Then, it's flexible and not so exact, isn't it?
>
> I'm talking about advanced mathematics, far from college degrees. It's on
> the field of researchers, not professors or teachers.
>
>
>
>

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 4:45:27 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 3:28:10 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 1:21:26 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 9:49:34 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Being 85 doesn’t give anyone license to be a bonehead.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> And moreover, people like you don’t come here to say things and be left
> >>>>>> alone. You come here to get much craved attention and you’re willing to say
> >>>>>> just about anything to increase the volume of the response.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bodkin, the 1,000 post/year man talking about attention craving, who
> >>>>> enters in a personal crisis if the response ration
> >>>>> isn't above 20%.
> >>>> Don’t project.
> >>>>> Ridicule reply of yours, considering that you almost never initiates a
> >>>>> thread, but need to "contribute"
> >>>>> with insights at almost 100% of the threads, no matter the topic.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At least, I focus on my own ideas, mostly on my OP.
> >>>> Yes you do, precisely my point. You feel you have more to say that is
> >>>> interesting than is actually so.
> >>>>> You need stimulus to participate, because you're afraid to make the first step.
> >>>> Not afraid at all. I’m just not so self-absorbed that I think that every
> >>>> one of my original thoughts is worth sharing. In contrast….
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Still with a childish attitude that probably has guided your entire life.
> >>>>> You're a follower only, aren't you? Like when at high school or college.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And about this particular thread, I visited Ed's site, and I think that
> >>>>> he's creative in his own way,
> >>>> Is this a creative writing outlet? Is this alt.soapbox.pay.attention?
> >>>>> Also persistent as anyone with an
> >>>>> objective should be to reach the desired end. Never surrender, never give up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How many books have you written, Bodkin? Ed is after his 6th., and is 85.
> >>>>> You should learn a little from him and stop mocking at his posts.
> >>>> Right, I know he’s written books, and self-published them. Has he sold any
> >>>> copies? That is, does anybody else think his stuff is valuable? Even at the
> >>>> $3 price?
> >>>>
> >>>> This is the same thing that others here did: Ken Seto, Robert Winn, about a
> >>>> half dozen others. They’ve felt like they’ve had something to say, enough
> >>>> to self-publish, but with sales in 1- or 2-digit counts, and they are
> >>>> mystified why their brilliant contributions aren’t consumed like wildfire.
> >>>>
> >>>> Seto, for example, devoted all his savings into a book, and he now openly
> >>>> lists his address as a home for the infirm and indigent. He says he is
> >>>> happy to have expended his retirement money “to advance science”. Except of
> >>>> course he’s the only person on the planet that thinks his ideas do anything
> >>>> to advance science. This is a path to personal ruin. You celebrate it for
> >>>> its “creativity”. I disparage it for being pointless self-delusion to feed
> >>>> his own ego.
> >>>>
> >>>> And you with your appetite for making “original posts” that have NO VALUE
> >>>> other than what YOU perceive (echoing “to advance science) are the target
> >>>> for the same reason. In fact in your case, you ADMIT that a lot of what you
> >>>> say you KNOW to be false and invented, just to generate a response. That is
> >>>> called TROLLING, and I don’t know why anyone would think that trolling
> >>>> should be celebrated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's almost the same with the other assholes like Moroney and Dirk. It's
> >>>>> if they are looking for revenge after being bullied all their life.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And I see that your business is expanding. How much do you charge for a
> >>>>> table of regular size, for dinner?
> >>>> There is no “regular size”. And it will depend on wood, finish, inlays,
> >>>> carved features, shape, whether there are joints and leaves, the
> >>>> configuration of the legs, whether you want matching chairs and how many,
> >>>> and a few other things. I’ve sold dining sets for as little as $600 and as
> >>>> high as $12,000. How much will the revenue from your self-published book
> >>>> cover?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You could write a book about the craft of woodworking and make it
> >>> available free of charge, online, for the advancement of
> >>> artisanal woodworking science (and I'm not making fun of you. I have a
> >>> lot of respect for such art, which I tried and failed).
> >> I also have a lot of respect for artisanal woodworking, which is why I know
> >> a book is not the way to train people on the craft. Apprenticing is. Books
> >> are largely a waste of time in this arena.
> >>>
> >>> Instead, and only with the intention of helping others in the telecom
> >>> industry, I wrote a manual about 12 key points in the
> >>> professional world of telecommunications industry, and I put it online
> >>> for downloading it free of charge. I used a pseudonymous
> >>> because I'm not interested in publicity. I used several spanish forums to
> >>> announce my offering, and it was downloaded about 300 times.
> >> Good for you. Notice this is a subject you knew something about, and even
> >> something you received training on and had plenty of professional practice
> >> with.
> >>
> >> This marks a key difference from what Ed Lake and Ken Seto are doing. They
> >> are self-publishing on subjects they know nothing about, have had no
> >> training on at all, and certainly no professional experience with. The
> >> reason they have no consumption of their books (for fee or free) is because
> >> they are OBVIOUSLY know-nothing pretenders who are claiming that the
> >> experts are all wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Through my spanish nick mail, which I posted (mandatory) I received
> >>> several contributions to enhance it and, also, many thanks. Such
> >>> material wasn't available for this region with the quality and depth
> >>> required for public telecom networks. 2/3 of the manual was
> >>> devoted to mobile telephony (1G through 4G). It was so because I firmly
> >>> believe that HISTORY of science and technology is very important
> >>> for the enrichment of the mind of students, so they can FIRMLY understand
> >>> why we are here with a 50 years timeline behind.
> >>>
> >>> I tried scify, with a draft of 200 pages about synchronicity and
> >>> telepathy (drama like style) and another draft of 150 pages about the drama
> >>> of a lonely space traveler orbiting Earth, who's losing its mind because
> >>> of uncontrollable thoughts about death in space grow out within
> >>> him, until he collapses causing a self-induced, self-accomplished
> >>> prophecy. Nobody on ground station could help him in any way. But I
> >>> recognized that I'm not talented to write something almost perfect, so
> >>> the work went to a box with other docs in my storage place.
> >> And that self awareness and restraint is precisely what Ed and Ken and a
> >> number of others lack. Ask Ken why he thinks his stuff is important
> >> physics, despite not knowing what the words even mean, and he’ll say
> >> “because I’m gifted.” Ed will say, “because I’m an Analyst”. It’s that
> >> total lack of self awareness that is laughable.
> >>>
> >>> I know my limits on my talents, like in music composition, on which I
> >>> proved my lack of talent (and passion, like for writing fiction).
> >>>
> >>> And because of the above, I have a LOT OF RESPECT for people with PASSION
> >>> seeking the required TALENT to produce ANYTHING.
> >> Great! Now notice that neither Ed nor Ken will seek to develop those
> >> talents. They won’t work through even introductory physics course materials
> >> and they dismiss mathematics as being wholly unnecessary and even
> >> counterproductive. Because they have no interest in developing any skill
> >> they don’t already have.
> >>>
> >>> Now, if the final product doesn't meet other people's expectations, is
> >>> not for me to JUDGE the value of such product IF, and ONLY IF,
> >>> it's declared as an amateur job AND the author recognize his/her
> >>> background and DON'T PRETEND to be above others.
> >>>
> >>> Now, filter Einstein reality with the above, and do the same with Ed's products.
> >>>
> >>> He's not calling others IDIOTS because THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND, as
> >>> Einstein did all the time.
> >> On the contrary, Ed calls most physicists “mathematicians” who have lost
> >> contact with reality. Ken regards physicists as failures. Robert Winn
> >> thinks physicists are the scourge of the earth and the source of most evil.
> >> You have said they are parasites on society.
> >>
> >> Don’t condemn that which you do.
> >>>
> >>> Or he is not in the hunt of "idiots under my perspective", like the
> >>> FUCKING RETARDED Dirk did/do, based on unknown faculties
> >>> that habilitated him to judge others at this site. Dirk has the attitude
> >>> of an arrogant with a micropenis, who mocks other's sizes.
> >>> A compensation for the torture within his broken mind, perhaps.
> >>>
> >>> You, Odd Bodkin, are dangerously close to Dirk's fate, as time pass by.
> >>>
> >>> Don't judge so vehemently and so easily. KARMA. We have a saying: "No
> >>> escupas para arriba". close to "Don't spit up."
> >>>
> >>> You recognized your lack of passion for your former job, and you're trying a new one.
> >>>
> >>> Ed worked his entire active life being a productive person. Let him
> >>> endulge his golden years pursuing HIS passions, which he only
> >>> try to communicate to others.
> >>>
> >>> SHOW SOME RESPECT AND COMPREHENSION FOR OTHERS, YOU ASSHOLES. Remember:
> >>> Karma is a bitch (verified for 100,000 years).
> >>>
> >> How about you show some respect for physicists on a physics newsgroup,
> >> m’kay?
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > I declare since TIME ZERO that my main intention here is to troll
> > relativists and the way they (and you) worship Einstein.
> >
> > Since I've found a weakness on most members when it comes to troll about
> > MODERN physicists (last 110 years), there you have it:
> > a second point of failure in the integrity of thoughts of most people here.
> >
> > And, thirdly, when I detected that putting engineering above physics make
> > the herd to panic and cry foul, how to miss this new target?
> >
> > So you have it: Einstein, relativity and engineers above physicists. Oh
> > my! This is so easy to troll about it!
> >
> > Add some funny sense of humor and you have, almost, the portrait of the
> > virtual "Richard Hertz" persona.
> >
> > I don't try to postulate an spare theory of my own, even when I have some
> > ideas. Being a critic is much more easier than be an author.
> >
> > And almost everyone in the world (western, eastern) knows this. Also it's
> > known that BOTH are wrong many, many times.
> > But this is conceptual and exclusively personal. No person is equal to
> > another one, in any aspect (to appreciate art, food, music,
> > stupid theories of modern physics, call the last one as an exact hard science, etc.).
> >
> > Take JanPB, Dirk or Dono: they are sold into what they bought while were
> > studying. And, as they are inflexible, they can't return to reason.
> >
> > A reasonable person, not a fanatic, can be a die hard fan of classical
> > music and yet appreciate some funky music.
> > A retarded fanatic (AKA relativist) would call heresy any other form of
> > mathematical composition than that of
> > classical music (1600-1880).
> >
> > Now, try to reason with such fanatic and try to show him/her that there
> > is SUBJECTIVE MATHEMATICS behind any kind of music and
> > tell me how does it go.
> >
> > Mathematics is a hard science, but advanced mathematics is not objective.
> > It's subjective and depends on the tools, the background
> > and the boundaries of applicability behind any expression or any sub-theory.
> >
> > There even two or more different theories that allow to reach the same
> > final result. Then, it's flexible and not so exact, isn't it?
> >
> > I'm talking about advanced mathematics, far from college degrees. It's on
> > the field of researchers, not professors or teachers.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> And now with all this crap about professional mathematics, you’re trolling
> me.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, 18 November 2021 at 20:45:27 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> >
> And now with all this crap about professional mathematics, you’re trolling
> me.

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind that
your bunch of idiots had to deny it's oldest, very important
and successful part, as it didn't want to fit the madness
of your insane guru.

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 11:32:37 AM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz confessed:

> I declare since TIME ZERO that my main intention here is to eat as much shit as possible

Right

On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Odd Bodkin
<bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

>A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important realizations
>and steps forward. Possibly not the ones you were aiming for, but you took
>them anyway. Specifically, you’ve now learned:
>

>
>2. Textbooks are valuable and efficient. A lot of the simple things are
>carefully explained if you take the time to look at teaching books, much
>better than casual websites or sloppy articles meant more to gee-whiz
>entertain than to accurately explain. Textbooks often use examples to stave
>off misconceptions, which popular articles don’t do. Most importantly,
>it’s much faster to look at a textbook FIRST to understand a concept, than
>it is to argue about something with others for a month or so on the
>internet, only to look at the textbook later and discover that you were
>wrong and they were right. You discovered this with the explanation of
>inertial frames and discovering that trucks at constant speed were in fact
>discussed, right there in the textbook, as well as why the earth’s surface
>can be treated approximately as an inertial frame.

Textbooks are for teachers not students.

Textbooks are old and outdated.

Textbooks want to be your sole source for information.

Textbooks have questions and answers (cause teacher doesn't know the
answers to based-facts that are in textbooks)

Who is ed lake?

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Odd Bodkin
> <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important realizations
> >and steps forward. Possibly not the ones you were aiming for, but you took
> >them anyway. Specifically, you’ve now learned:
> >
>
> >
> >2. Textbooks are valuable and efficient. A lot of the simple things are
> >carefully explained if you take the time to look at teaching books, much
> >better than casual websites or sloppy articles meant more to gee-whiz
> >entertain than to accurately explain. Textbooks often use examples to stave
> >off misconceptions, which popular articles don’t do. Most importantly,
> >it’s much faster to look at a textbook FIRST to understand a concept, than
> >it is to argue about something with others for a month or so on the
> >internet, only to look at the textbook later and discover that you were
> >wrong and they were right. You discovered this with the explanation of
> >inertial frames and discovering that trucks at constant speed were in fact
> >discussed, right there in the textbook, as well as why the earth’s surface
> >can be treated approximately as an inertial frame.
>
> Textbooks are for teachers not students.
>
> Textbooks are old and outdated.
>
> Textbooks want to be your sole source for information.
>
> Textbooks have questions and answers (cause teacher doesn't know the
> answers to based-facts that are in textbooks)
>

Futhermore...you cannot depend on just a textbook. There are other
sources out there for information...

just as a carpenter cannot just use a hammar to build a cabinet. You
need a saw, chisel, sander, a plane or other tools.

Textbooks are not the only source.

Textbooks is not a mandate.

I might as well just steal all the answers the teacher has....

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 14:29:23 -0000 (UTC), Odd Bodkin
> > <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >A simple note of congratulations, Ed, on making some important realizations
> > >and steps forward. Possibly not the ones you were aiming for, but you took
> > >them anyway. Specifically, you’ve now learned:
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >2. Textbooks are valuable and efficient. A lot of the simple things are
> > >carefully explained if you take the time to look at teaching books, much
> > >better than casual websites or sloppy articles meant more to gee-whiz
> > >entertain than to accurately explain. Textbooks often use examples to stave
> > >off misconceptions, which popular articles don’t do. Most importantly,
> > >it’s much faster to look at a textbook FIRST to understand a concept, than
> > >it is to argue about something with others for a month or so on the
> > >internet, only to look at the textbook later and discover that you were
> > >wrong and they were right. You discovered this with the explanation of
> > >inertial frames and discovering that trucks at constant speed were in fact
> > >discussed, right there in the textbook, as well as why the earth’s surface
> > >can be treated approximately as an inertial frame.
> >
> > Textbooks are for teachers not students.
> >
> > Textbooks are old and outdated.
> >
> > Textbooks want to be your sole source for information.
> >
> > Textbooks have questions and answers (cause teacher doesn't know the
> > answers to based-facts that are in textbooks)
> >
>
> Futhermore...you cannot depend on just a textbook. There are other
> sources out there for information...
>
> just as a carpenter cannot just use a hammar to build a cabinet. You
> need a saw, chisel, sander, a plane or other tools.
>
> Textbooks are not the only source.
>
> Textbooks is not a mandate.
>
> I might as well just steal all the answers the teacher has....

Textbooks are for teachers...unreadable by students.

Look at Odd Bodkin's original post...

doesn't it read like a person who specializes in writing Textbooks for a living????

Odd Bodkin can only deal with based-facts that are in textbooks. (cause he gots the answers already) (probably a subscriber to answerstotextbooks.com)

He's gots all the answers, ask the questions...but it *must* be in a textbook already. Otherwise he's lost.

What good is a teacher if they don't have the answers to the textbook they are teaching from????

zero!

zilch.

nada

kaput!

dummkopf

putz

>
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 2:15:52 PM UTC-8, The Starmaker wrote:

> Textbooks are for teachers not students.
>
> Textbooks are old and outdated.
>
>
> Textbooks want to be your sole source for information.
>
> Textbooks have questions and answers (cause teacher doesn't know the
> answers to based-facts that are in textbooks)
>
>
> Who is ed lake?

Another complete dumbfuck makes his presence felt...