Speaking of mental disorders, you are a "muthaf*ckin queen!" (can't recall the movie that's from) of denial.
HERE is where you said it: "...how was there enough if any left behind to continue to burn for as long as each tower stood before they collapsed?" (Post #678 if you want to claim my quote is faked).
I comprehend just fine.
Why did you use words to indicate you believed there was no fuel left to burn, if that's not what you MEANT? Words are very important. If you have so much difficulty using them to express what you MEAN, then maybe stick to just reading here, and looking at the pretty pictures.
Once again b/c you seem to forget things quickly:
"The interjectory “if any” is used to indicate that the bare minimum of something will probably not happen or will not come to pass"
"When used as an interjectory statement, “if any” highlights how little there is of something."
If you didn't want to intimate that there was little to no fuel left after the fireball, then you shouldn't have used the words "if any".
WORDS ARE IMPORTANT FOR CONVEYING WHAT YOU MEAN.
Use them wisely.
Nope, just a really good memory.
It helps in talking to people like you who spin, backpedal, obfuscate, flip-flop, and flat out lie to try and argue your point.
The CONTEXT is that you are now real worried about the definition of LIQUID when it comes to your belief that the steel in WTC7 couldn't have melted form "some chairs and papers". If the definition of LIQUID is important now, one must assume it was important when you declared to us all that glass is a LIQUID.
Or is this going to be like the word "in" for describing nerves in bones? Maybe you were using a different and special definition for LIQUID back when you very much declared glass was a liquid?
Ohhhh, so "liquid" when it applies to steel is different from "liquid" when it applies to glass?
Cool.
Cool. Tell us the definition for "liquid" when we are discussing steel, then tell us the different definition for "liquid" when we are discussing glass.
Don't be disingenuous. I gave you the post number. You don't need to go searching for it. Just go right to the post.
No. I simply asked you to give me the post # where you listed the dozen-or-so reasons. It's probably only 3 digits. No need to retype your whole explanation.
As for "everything costs a lot more", do you mean real price or actual prices?
The average real price for gas in 2020 was $3.19 a gallon. Online sources say it is around $2.75 now. That's pretty good, I think. We have a long way to go to see the 2024 average, though.
In 2020, the average real price of ground beef was $7.17 a pound.
If you Google ground beef without naming a store or even a state, you'll see prices in the mid $6 range.
That's pretty good.
In 2020, the real price of a dozen eggs was $1.81. Google a dozen eggs and you'll see prices like $1.16, $1.99, etc.
That's puts us at a net zero position on eggs, I'd venture.
This is why I like to speak to hard data and facts, and I argue from those positions.
Too many people argue from the standpoint of "because I said so" or "because I believe". They'll complain about something that has actually IMPROVED, but they THINK it's worse or want it to be so they can blame someone.
Speaking of beliefs: Did you know that ~93% of drivers will tell you that they drive with better skill than the median driver does?
Think about that math for a minute.
Interesting. There's a guy here who will argue, to the death, that bones do not have nerves in them.
He'll tell you three separate doctors told him so, AND that his extensive education in anatomy for the biology class he took makes HIM the expert. He'll tell you medical science uses the word "in"" wrong, and that the word "innervation" does not mean what they claim it does.
Would YOU take his word for it, or ask him to prove what he insists to be true?
You already died on that hill, but want to keep going? Sure.
I asked questions to make sure it was understood what the guy was trying to figure out.
It's a basic tactic of troubleshooting.
YOU jumped right in with answers for him, which turned out to be WRONG, and showed us that you don't know audio near as well as you proclaim.
Do you still think paralleled wires hidden in a box are different than if those same wires are visible?
Do you still not know why an amp would have a low-level output jack on it?
Oh, and when are you going to tell that other guy how to properly set the phase on his subwoofer?
You jumped right in to try and take Thunderdome into the main forum, and then you offered absolutely NOTHING to the thread.
Do you not know what phase is and how to set it, either?
Maybe once you learn about line-level pass-through, perhaps.
HAHAHAHA, Your little meme below shows us BOTH things that confused you: Connecting subs to an amp with more than one set of speaker terminals, and what a low-level OUTPUT is on an amplifier.
Awesome.
Last edited:
