Comments | vap0rtranz: On Disagreements: Punch 'em

vap0rtranz

On Disagreements: Punch 'em

Jun 23, 2007 00:37

We know they’re wrong. Yet how do we avoid that cliche idiom, “I respectfully disagree.” The quotes speak for themselves.

... we need a meta-decision system for resolution of disagreement. ( Read more... )

dialogues & conversations, relationships, philosophy

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

Justin, you're friend isn't in the loop. Maybe you should clue him in. moosehead_beer June 24 2007, 19:25:29 UTC

Let the initial position and speed of an overdamped, nondriven oscillator be x0 and v0, respectively.

Recall that the equation of motion for such an oscillator is

where

and w0 is the characteristic frequency.

(a) Show that the amplitudes A1 and A2 have the values

and

where

and

.

(b) Show that when A1 = 0, the phase paths must be along the line given by

, otherwise the asymptotic paths are along the line given by

. Hint: Note that

and find the asymptotic paths when

Re: Justin, you're friend isn't in the loop. Maybe you should clue him in. hfx_ben June 24 2007, 19:36:02 UTC

There are 8 points in the post; you've related this elaboration to none.

It's evident that your only intention is to mock and condescend.

Re: Justin, you're friend isn't in the loop. Maybe you should clue him in. moosehead_beer June 24 2007, 19:38:00 UTC

Good job. You've figured out part of the puzzle. You might want to widen your search a bit for the rest.

Re: Justin, you're friend isn't in the loop. Maybe you should clue him in. hfx_ben June 24 2007, 20:21:39 UTC

My "search"? No search here.
What fires my inquisitiveness, that I can speak to: your malevolence ... perhaps you've some pscyhophysiological predisposition to pompous arrogance. For a few moment your narcissism got me considering autistic solipsism ... but I don't think that's so: you're obviously playing to the audience.

3 year old ego construct? "I can therefore I must"? A primadona who raves to remain central to the exchange?

In any case, yours manner makes a useful study: the polar contradiction of Habermas' discourse ethics. You begin with an empty ad hominem then carry on mocking ... compel, coerce, conquer.

I'll leave you to play with your scat, lest I begin to objectify you.

Re: Justin, you're friend isn't in the loop. Maybe you should clue him in. vap0rtranz June 25 2007, 01:24:28 UTC

perhaps you've some pscyhophysiological predisposition to pompous arrogance. For a few moment your narcissism got me considering autistic solipsism

Careful. There's some history here that I've meant to extend to Andrew's posts ... "climb the steps of tyranny. BECOME GOD! (well ... if you were a solipsist -- )."

Re: Justin, you're friend isn't in the loop. Maybe you should clue him in. hfx_ben June 25 2007, 02:13:46 UTC

*shrug*
After the salvo of personal attacks I asked how his manifestation of expertise related to the initial post. The "your search" seemed to me no more than evasiveness.

Re: Justin, you're friend isn't in the loop. Maybe you should clue him in. vap0rtranz June 25 2007, 01:32:57 UTC

P.S. in RE My "search"? No search here.

Andrew means he has reasons for not responding to the OP and for posting these problems, and I don't necessarily find those reasons "bad" or worthy to censor.

Re: Justin, you're friend isn't in the loop. Maybe you should clue him in. hfx_ben June 25 2007, 03:08:06 UTC

"are you developing your science-think or simply waffling around?"
That in response to your ""What is this in response to? Not the OP, surely."

I was on the right track; his contempt is justified by the way it's so routinely indulged.

Re: Justin, you're friend isn't in the loop. Maybe you should clue him in. vap0rtranz June 25 2007, 03:29:43 UTC

hehe :)

Back to all threads