Ed Lake <detect@outlook.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 4:04:36 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 12:41:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:03:13 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>>
>>>> To declare a velocity, implicitly means there is an "observer".
>>>> Do you agree that the above sentence means/imply that? (to this point,
>>>> it's just a question of English language).
>>
>>> We can ASSUME there is an "observer," since without an "observer" we
>>> see and know and observe nothing.
>> OK. So you agree that to do physics, to do actual measurements, we need an
>> "observer"...right?
>> So when we see sentences as " the speed is...", there is implicitly and observer, right?
>
> Okay, I think I'm done posting here for awhile. We're just arguing over
> words and phrasing.

Indeed. That’s the point. You don’t know the meaning of the words as used
in the context of physics. Naturally, then, when you read something and
take a different meaning, that’s due to that shortfall. Here’s a reminder:
professional journal papers are not written for audiences outside the
professional community. They are in fact written assuming that only readers
with deep physics background will know enough to parse it correctly. You
have chosen to say, “screw that, I’m interested in the subject, and I will
read the papers and interpret the words in the way any ordinary layman
might interpret them, using nothing more than common sense.” That right
there is a fool’s strategy, and one almost certain to fail.

So OF COURSE the discussion with you is going to involve a lot of arguing
over words and phrasing.

>
> I never should have said that you need an "observer" to see an event.
> There are countless "events" that happen in the universe without any
> observer there to SEE them.
>
> Einstein's Second Postulate does NOT involve any observer. All it says is
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
> is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
>
> That is true and happens whether there is anyone around to see it happen
> or not. When you add an observer to the situation, you have to state where
> the observer is located. If the observer is located with the emitter, then the
> photon will travel at c away from that observer. If the observer is somewhere
> else, then what the observer will see (and measure) depends upon a lot of
> factors.
>
>>> And we know from experiments that
>>> a moving observer will NOT see oncoming light as traveling at c.
>> That is untrue. Actual experiments show otherwise. Are you now a reality
>> denier? That you deny the results of peer-reviewed experiments and papers?
>
> NAME THE EXPERIMENTS!
>
> Here is a list of experiments which say what I just said:
> http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>
> Ed
>

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

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:20:37 PM UTC-4, RichD wrote:
> On March 30, rotchm wrote:
> > "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c."
> > means that no matter who measures it, they will get c, be it the emitting
> > body, or some other body. This is just a matter of the logic of the English language
>
> "A wave is always propagated in calm water with a definite velocity d."
> means that no matter who measures it, they will get d, be it the emitting
> body, or some other body. This is just a matter of the logic of the English language.

Correct. In your above paragraph, we clearly understand your context and that "velocity "d"
is relative to the body mass of water.

In the statement "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c.",
We clearly understand the contacts and that this velocity is relative to all (inertial) Observers.
True, it takes brains to understand a sentence with in context.

Like here, your sentence in my sentence are basically logically identical. Yet, they mean totally different things. That is because their context are totally different. We understand the intended meaning of the author.

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 5:23:50 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 4:04:36 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> Okay, I think I'm done posting here for awhile. We're just arguing over
> words and phrasing.

That's exactly what I told you. So how can we remedy that? Is it by running away?
Or is it by learning to understand the language?

> I never should have said that you need an "observer" to see an event.
> There are countless "events" that happen in the universe without any
> observer there to SEE them.

And all that is Irrelevant in the context of relativity. Because we know that Observer, event, reference frame, specifying positions or speeds, Etc are all basically synonyms.

> Einstein's Second Postulate does NOT involve any observer.

Didn't you recently agree with me that one implicit observer was the EMITTER ?
That is, Einstein second part of it does involve and observer...?

> All it says is
> "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which
> is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
> That is true and happens whether there is anyone around to see it happen
> or not. When you add an observer to the situation, you have to state where
> the observer is located.

The intended meaning of the postulate, the contacts it's clear for us all (you are the only one who disagrees)

> > That is untrue. Actual experiments show otherwise. Are you now a reality denier?
> > That you deny the results of peer-reviewed experiments and papers?
> NAME THE EXPERIMENTS!

Many astronomical events occur. The light from these events Traverse many satellites we have around Earth, and here around other planets. We measure the distance and time difference between these passages from the different satellites. The speed of that light is always C to Within accuracies.

Here on Earth, we send particles at high speed and measure the speed of light emanating from those particles. We always have obtained c.

On 3/31/2022 12:34 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 7:05:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 3/30/2022 5:18 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 12:51:19 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 3/30/2022 11:12 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:02:40 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 5:17:09 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 2:57:02 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The first one says that light is ALWAYS EMITTED at c ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just in that sentence, who is the 'observer' , the one noting that the
>>>>>>>> speed is c?
>>>>>>> The emitter is the only "observer."
>>>>>> OK. However, to those who can read English, those who can understand what is written (or the intention thereof),
>>>>>> the above not only means that the 'observer' is the emitter, but that the observer can be any (inertial) observer.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that is what is called "making a false assumption." It is twisting the
>>>>> statement to make it fit some argument that you want to make.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But yes, some may interpret the above that the only observer is the emitter.
>>>>>> Those people (you?) should investigate more the meaning of that sentence to see if they understood it correctly.
>>>>>>>>> Light is emitted at c whether the emitter is moving or stationary, accelerating or
>>>>>>>>> decelerating.
>>>>>>>> Again, who is the observer that is noting that the speed is c in those cases?
>>>>>>> The emitter is the only "observer."
>>>>>> In the now above, it is much more clear that the author meant that any (inertial) observer is/are the ones
>>>>>> declaring that it is 'c'; that the emitter is NOT 'the' observer. Anyone who understands English, would have understood/interpreted it like that. Do you agree with my comments in this reply?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, of course not.
>>>> Throughout the paper Einstein does NOT assume that only the emitter is
>>>> the observer. Your claim makes no sense.
>>>
>>> You make no sense. You seem to believe that if Einstein is talking about
>>> one thing on page 1, he must be talking about the same thing all pages.
>> If the only thing he talks about in the second postulate is the speed of
>> light relative to the emitter, but throughout the paper he talks about
>> the speed of light relative to various observers, why even mention that
>> unused postulate?
>
>> But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate! Remember, you
>> said that the postulate ONLY states the speed of light is c relative to
>> the emitter. Not to any other observer, the emitter ONLY.
>
>> But he doesn't even use (your version of) the postulate!
>
>> So you admit that (your version of) the second Postulate isn't used!
>
> You clearly do not understand what a postulate is. Let me see if I can
> summarize for you Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity:
>
> He says, Experiments with magnets and conductors indicate that if we
> ASSUME that two things are true, then we get a THEORY that does not
[bla bla bla]
> Then Einstein begins describing his theory in TEN different sections.
> each describing a part of the THEORY. I'll just mention a few of them.
[bla bla bla]
> I could explain the other sections, too, but the point is: a postulate is
> an ASSUMPTION used to develop a THEORY. The THEORY is about how
> light and time work. There are NO POSTULATES described in the theory,
> the theory describes how things work IF the postulates are true.

And you ignore my point. In all those 10 sections, Einstein never used
the fact that the speed of light is c relative to the emitter.

Instead he used the REAL second postulate (not your opinion of what it
should be) that the speed of light is c relative to ALL (inertial)
observers.

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
> >>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
> >>>> the words mean.
> >>>
> >>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
> >>>
> >> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
> >> language devised by them for purpose.
> >
> > For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
> > of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
> > means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
> irrelevant to that

No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. You're not
calling AH like that when talking to them just because
they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain?

> Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what
> you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about
> physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy.

It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like
they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of
your vodka, or alike.

On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 23:54:19 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ed Lake <det...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 4:04:36 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> >> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 12:41:02 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:03:13 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> >>
> >>>> To declare a velocity, implicitly means there is an "observer".
> >>>> Do you agree that the above sentence means/imply that? (to this point,
> >>>> it's just a question of English language).
> >>
> >>> We can ASSUME there is an "observer," since without an "observer" we
> >>> see and know and observe nothing.
> >> OK. So you agree that to do physics, to do actual measurements, we need an
> >> "observer"...right?
> >> So when we see sentences as " the speed is...", there is implicitly and observer, right?
> >
> > Okay, I think I'm done posting here for awhile. We're just arguing over
> > words and phrasing.
> Indeed. That’s the point. You don’t know the meaning of the words as used
> in the context of physics.

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by
your moronic physics TAI keep measuring t'=t, just like all
serious clocks always did.

On 4/1/2022 1:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. You're not
> calling AH like that when talking to them just because
> they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain?
>
>> Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what
>> you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about
>> physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy.
>
> It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like
> they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of
> your vodka, or alike.

I call Godwin. Maciej loses.

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 07:21:09 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/1/2022 1:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> > No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> > AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant. You're not
> > calling AH like that when talking to them just because
> > they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain?
> >
> >> Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what
> >> you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about
> >> physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy.
> >
> > It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like
> > they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of
> > your vodka, or alike.
> I call Godwin. Maciej loses.

No, stupid Mike. You're of course too dumb to notice,
but I'm not comparing your fellow idiot Odd to nazis here.

On 2022-03-30 18:41:46 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-03-28 15:59:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:
>>
>>> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
>>> "Those who donâ•˙t know physics do physics teaching.
>>> "Those who donâ•˙t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
>>>
>>> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
>>> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England.
>>
>> It's much older than that. At least, I heard a very similar proposition
>> in the 1970s.
>
> Certainly. AFAIk the original, just two lines, was:
>
> Those who can, do.
> Those who can't, teach.

Yes. That's the version I heard many years ago (plus your third line).
I didn't remember the wording in time to include it in my comment.

> [1]
>
> -Much- better than Ed's mongrelised version,
> because it doesn't imply that teaching is done by incompetents,
>
> Jan
>
> [1] My prefered third line is
>
> Those who can't teach, tell others how to.

Mine too.

When I became a Lecturer at Birmingham in 1970 we were encouraged to
attend a course in the Education Department. I didn't, and I don't know
of anyone who did at that time. A few years later they persuaded the
Biochemistry Department, and doubtless others, to make it compulsory
for new lecturers. A younger colleague who was forced to go told me
afterwards that it was as bad as you or I would expect.

I think that in most universities the most incompetent teachers are to
be found in the Education Department.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2022-03-30 18:41:46 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-03-28 15:59:48 +0000, Ed Lake said:
> >>
> >>> "Those who do know physics do physics research.
> >>> "Those who donâ•˙t know physics do physics teaching.
> >>> "Those who donâ•˙t know how to do teaching teach how to teach physics."
> >>>
> >>> That quote is from a book of articles read at a 2009 conference about
> >>> physics that was held at the University of Leicester in England.
> >>
> >> It's much older than that. At least, I heard a very similar proposition
> >> in the 1970s.
> >
> > Certainly. AFAIk the original, just two lines, was:
> >
> > Those who can, do.
> > Those who can't, teach.
>
> Yes. That's the version I heard many years ago (plus your third line).
> I didn't remember the wording in time to include it in my comment.

The two line original is due to George Bernard Shaw.
(looking, in 1903, Man and Superman)
There are various third lines, apart from the one I invented for myself.
(no doubt others found just the same third line before I did)

> > -Much- better than Ed's mongrelised version,
> > because it doesn't imply that teaching is done by incompetents,
> >
> > [1] My prefered third line is
> >
> > Those who can't teach, tell others how to.
>
> Mine too.
>
> When I became a Lecturer at Birmingham in 1970 we were encouraged to
> attend a course in the Education Department. I didn't, and I don't know
> of anyone who did at that time. A few years later they persuaded the
> Biochemistry Department, and doubtless others, to make it compulsory
> for new lecturers. A younger colleague who was forced to go told me
> afterwards that it was as bad as you or I would expect.
>
> I think that in most universities the most incompetent teachers are to
> be found in the Education Department.

For a long time only attendance at their lectures was required.
(at a place I happen to know about)
So people went there, signed the presence list,
and sat it out, playing chess, or reading newspapers.
Since then didactics departments have grown,
increasng in numbers and power, so that is no longer possible

I really have no idea what kind of exam questions they can ask,

Jan

--
"My attempts at teaching mathematics have been largely in vain,
except for a few happy cases in which they were superfluous"
(some great name prof, long ago)

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
>>>>>> the words mean.
>>>>>
>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
>>>>>
>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
>>>> language devised by them for purpose.
>>>
>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
>> irrelevant to that
>
> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.

No, that’s not an example of jargon.

You can look that word “jargon” up.

It’s no wonder you don’t like jargon, you don’t even know what the word
means.

> You're not
> calling AH like that when talking to them just because
> they do. Or do you, poor halfbrain?
>
>> Well, since you are not part of the physics community, they don’t care what
>> you think anyway. So that’s fine. You won’t communicate intelligently about
>> physics because you don’t know physics language and that’s just dandy.
>
> It's quite similiar with nazis: if you don't want to call AH like
> they do - they won't talk to you. They will just scream of
> your vodka, or alike.
>

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

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
> >>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
> >>>>>> the words mean.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
> >>>> language devised by them for purpose.
> >>>
> >>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
> >>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
> >>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
> >> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
> >> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
> >> irrelevant to that
> >
> > No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> > AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.
> No, that’s not an example of jargon.

Because an idiot woodworker says so? If
"proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious",
poor halfbrain?

> You can look that word “jargon” up.

So you can. No wonder you spread your nonsenses
about jargon, you don’t even know what the word means.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
>>>>>>>> the words mean.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
>>>> irrelevant to that
>>>
>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.
>> No, that’s not an example of jargon.
>
> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If
> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious",
> poor halfbrain?
>

Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking
special meanings specific to that community.
On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning special to the
community of physics.
Duh.

As mentioned before, if you don’t know what “jargon” means, you can look
that word up.

>> You can look that word “jargon” up.
>
> So you can. No wonder you spread your nonsenses
> about jargon, you don’t even know what the word means.
>
>

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

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
> >>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
> >>>>>>>> the words mean.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
> >>>>>> language devised by them for purpose.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
> >>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
> >>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
> >>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
> >>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
> >>>> irrelevant to that
> >>>
> >>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> >>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.
> >> No, that’s not an example of jargon.
> >
> > Because an idiot woodworker says so? If
> > "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious",
> > poor halfbrain?
> >
> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking
> special meanings specific to that community.

How do you know?

> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning

Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense.
The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
halfbrain.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
>>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
>>>>>>>>>> the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
>>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
>>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
>>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
>>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
>>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
>>>>>> irrelevant to that
>>>>>
>>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
>>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.
>>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon.
>>>
>>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If
>>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious",
>>> poor halfbrain?
>>>
>> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking
>> special meanings specific to that community.
>
> How do you know?
>
>> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning
>
> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense.
> The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
> halfbrain.
>

Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary.

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

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 18:32:50 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
> >>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
> >>>>>>>>>> the words mean.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
> >>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
> >>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
> >>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
> >>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
> >>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
> >>>>>> irrelevant to that
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> >>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.
> >>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon.
> >>>
> >>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If
> >>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious",
> >>> poor halfbrain?
> >>>
> >> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking
> >> special meanings specific to that community.
> >
> > How do you know?
> >
> >> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning
> >
> > Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense.
> > The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
> > and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
> > that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
> > proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
> > halfbrain.
> >
> Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary.

Speaking about dictionaries, Bod -
https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense

And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
halfbrain.

On 4/1/2022 1:12 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 18:32:50 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
>>>>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
>>>>>>>>>>>> the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
>>>>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
>>>>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
>>>>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
>>>>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
>>>>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
>>>>>>>> irrelevant to that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
>>>>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.
>>>>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If
>>>>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious",
>>>>> poor halfbrain?
>>>>>
>>>> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking
>>>> special meanings specific to that community.
>>>
>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning
>>>
>>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense.
>>> The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
>>> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
>>> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
>>> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
>>> halfbrain.
>>>
>> Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary.
>
> Speaking about dictionaries, Bod -
> https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense
>
> And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
> halfbrain.
>
Stop Godwinning yourself, Woz.

You really do need to look up "jargon".

BTW "proper" isn't the word being used as jargon. "Proper time", the
phrase, is the jargon. It describes a particular type of time
measurement, and there was no pre-existing adjective which could be
tacked onto the word "time" to mean what proper time now means, so a
jargon phrase "proper time" evolved.

Complete statements like "communism is the best system" or "AH was a
great leader" are propaganda or beliefs and are complete sentences, not
a word or short phrase. Communist theory jargon might be words like
"proletariat" or "bourgeoisie" which have specific meanings in their theory.

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 21:23:17 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/1/2022 1:12 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 18:32:50 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the words mean.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
> >>>>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
> >>>>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
> >>>>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
> >>>>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
> >>>>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
> >>>>>>>> irrelevant to that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> >>>>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.
> >>>>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If
> >>>>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious",
> >>>>> poor halfbrain?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking
> >>>> special meanings specific to that community.
> >>>
> >>> How do you know?
> >>>
> >>>> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning
> >>>
> >>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense.
> >>> The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
> >>> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
> >>> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
> >>> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
> >>> halfbrain.
> >>>
> >> Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary.
> >
> > Speaking about dictionaries, Bod -
> > https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense
> >
> > And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
> > and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
> > that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
> > proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
> > halfbrain.
> >
> Stop Godwinning yourself, Woz.
>
> You really do need to look up "jargon".

Is it 42, stupid Mike?

> Complete statements like "communism is the best system" or "AH was a
> great leader" are propaganda or beliefs and are complete sentences, not
> a word or short phrase.

If it was "great leader AH" it would be fine.
The logic of stupid Mike and his fellow idiots.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/2022 1:12 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 18:32:50 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the words mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
>>>>>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
>>>>>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
>>>>>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
>>>>>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
>>>>>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
>>>>>>>>> irrelevant to that
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
>>>>>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.
>>>>>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If
>>>>>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious",
>>>>>> poor halfbrain?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking
>>>>> special meanings specific to that community.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know?
>>>>
>>>>> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning
>>>>
>>>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense.
>>>> The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
>>>> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
>>>> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
>>>> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
>>>> halfbrain.
>>>>
>>> Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary.
>>
>> Speaking about dictionaries, Bod -
>> https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense
>>
>> And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
>> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
>> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
>> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
>> halfbrain.
>>
> Stop Godwinning yourself, Woz.
>
> You really do need to look up "jargon".
>
> BTW "proper" isn't the word being used as jargon. "Proper time", the
> phrase, is the jargon.

Yes, this is correct. Keep in mind that for Woz, jargon is despicable in
itself. Keep in mind that for Woz, the whole deal is “fuck you”. As in
“fuck your physics,” “fuck your jargon”, “fuck your non-common-sense
concepts”, “fuck the ground you walk on”.

He lives in a loop of rage. I don’t know if that’s because of early career
issues, or just interactions on this group. Either way, it’s pathological.
He knows it, doesn’t care, gotta get it out.

> It describes a particular type of time
> measurement, and there was no pre-existing adjective which could be
> tacked onto the word "time" to mean what proper time now means, so a
> jargon phrase "proper time" evolved.
>
> Complete statements like "communism is the best system" or "AH was a
> great leader" are propaganda or beliefs and are complete sentences, not
> a word or short phrase. Communist theory jargon might be words like
> "proletariat" or "bourgeoisie" which have specific meanings in their theory.
>

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

On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 2:04:36 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 12:41:02 PM UTC-4, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 30, 2022 at 9:03:13 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
>
> > > To declare a velocity, implicitly means there is an "observer".
> > > Do you agree that the above sentence means/imply that? (to this point, it's just a question of English language).
>
> > We can ASSUME there is an "observer," since without an "observer" we
> > see and know and observe nothing.
> OK. So you agree that to do physics, to do actual measurements, we need an "observer"...right?
> So when we see sentences as " the speed is...", there is implicitly and observer, right?
>
> In other words, we need a reference frame (some may call it a coordinate system).
> Are you aware that "observer" and "reference frame" are synonyms (in physics and especially in relativity)?
> > > Now, adding to that sentence "which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." does not change the first clause.
> Agree or not?
> > > In fact, "which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." is redundant, since just
> > > "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c." means that no matter who measures it,
> > > they will get c, be it the emitting body, or some other body (another observer). This is just a matter of the
> > > logic of the English language, the meaning of the words used.
>
> > TOTAL NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Okay, so the problem here is one language. You do not agree or interpret what Einstein wrote as the way we understand or interpret it.
> This is why I am trying to take a step back, and use simpler sentences.
> > The quote CLEARLY says
> > NOTHING about what other observers will see.
> It doesn't need to be that specific, since it is obvious to the intended readers but that is what was meant.
> And as a proof of that, if you read the rest of Einstein's work, you will see that he does specify that it is independent of The Observers.
> > And we know from experiments that
> > a moving observer will NOT see oncoming light as traveling at c.
> That is untrue. Actual experiments show otherwise. Are you now a reality denier? That you deny the results of peer-reviewed experiments and papers?

The observer is the observer of MX.

Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying.

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

On 3/31/2022 4:13 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 21:56:40 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> And that observer observes "Light is always propagated in empty space
>> with a definite velocity c."
>
> Stupid Mike, even your idiot guru was unable to stick to this
> nonsense for a long time and his GR shit had to abandon it.
>
>
>> Nope, we know from experiments that ALL observers observe light moving
>> at c.
>
> No, stupid Mike, I don't, for instance.

Observers have to observe, drunken janitor. With your head so far up
your ass the only thing you can observe is scan for colon polyps by
performing a self-colonoscopy.
>
>> Remember, this was known BEFORE Einstein came along.
>
> Remember, only such an idiot can believe such an impudent
> lie.

Nope, it was well known at the time. That's why a constant speed of
light was a postulate (something believed to be and assumed to be true)
for the 1905 paper, not a wild what-if claim.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying.
>
>

Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different.

--
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:
> >
> > Repeated Errors in Physics Textbooks is ...Terrifying.
> >
> >
>
> Everytime you take a physics test, the questions are the same as last year but the answers are different.
>

Go face to face with people you know and ask them.."How many planets are
there in our solar system?"

They probably will grab their phone to look it up...

I would say 99.9 percent of the people on the earth don't know the
answer...(including scientist and astro martianist.)

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

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 22:27:44 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> > On 4/1/2022 1:12 PM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 18:32:50 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:21:02 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 15:00:28 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 22:19:46 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 20:52:21 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 18:56:03 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ed, just to make a small point here: jotting down what a postulate says,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> from some source you looked up, doesn’t mean much if you don’t know what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the words mean.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> To know that you must be a skilled woodworker.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Nah. What it does require is reading the works of physicists, because it’s
> >>>>>>>>>>> language devised by them for purpose.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For the purpose of brainwashing new generations
> >>>>>>>>>> of the morons like themself; sure. But that no way
> >>>>>>>>>> means they know what the words mean. Sorry.
> >>>>>>>>> Of course it does. Jargon is created by the members of the community for
> >>>>>>>>> their internal communication. What the world outside that community uses is
> >>>>>>>>> irrelevant to that
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> No, poor idiot, it is not. If a jargon of nazis is calling
> >>>>>>>> AH " a great, ingenious leader" - it is relevant.
> >>>>>>> No, that’s not an example of jargon.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Because an idiot woodworker says so? If
> >>>>>> "proper" is - why not "great" or "ingenious",
> >>>>>> poor halfbrain?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Because in the community of Nazis, “great” and “ingenious” are not taking
> >>>>> special meanings specific to that community.
> >>>>
> >>>> How do you know?
> >>>>
> >>>>> On the other hand, “proper time” DOES take special meaning
> >>>>
> >>>> Only such an idiot can believe such a nonsense.
> >>>> The truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
> >>>> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
> >>>> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
> >>>> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
> >>>> halfbrain.
> >>>>
> >>> Woz, you are an idiot. Can’t even look up “jargon” in the dictionary.
> >>
> >> Speaking about dictionaries, Bod -
> >> https://www.synonyms-thesaurus.com/antonyms-common-sense
> >>
> >> And the truth is - while nazis believe AH was a great
> >> and ingenious leader - your bunch of idiots believe
> >> that the mad concepts of your insane guru are
> >> proper. No significant difference. Sorry, poor
> >> halfbrain.
> >>
> > Stop Godwinning yourself, Woz.
> >
> > You really do need to look up "jargon".
> >
> > BTW "proper" isn't the word being used as jargon. "Proper time", the
> > phrase, is the jargon.
> Yes, this is correct. Keep in mind that for Woz,

No, it's not. Keep it in mind that for Bod any nonsense,
any lie is good when it's for The Shit or against its
opponents.

He lives in a loop of rage. I don’t know if that’s because of early career
issues, or just interactions on this group. Either way, it’s pathological.
He's too dumb to know, of course.