I'm delighted the Lib/Dems have decided on one policy, because 1)it appears they have only one policy (Remain) and 2)even the most staunch remainers do not want to take the choice away from everyone else. They are being as undemocratic as (Leave at any cost) Boris and his few remaining far right chums. Probably for the first time in his life Jeremy Corbyn finds himself in Centre ground, even Tony Blair is praising him. More for his genius political strategy than his philanthropic agenda I'm sure, but praise nevertheless.
I do try to supress my inner bitch, but I am happy to make an exception in the case of Jo Swinson. Jo Swinson gleefully joined up with the tories for a coalition government and voted with and alongside them for the cruellest of the tories' cuts and sanctions to the poorest in our society. She has blood on her hands just the same as those Eton boys she is so happy to team up with. I couldn't be happier that she and her ill-informed party cohorts are going with just the one stance on Brexit. As nice as it would be to put it all to bed once and for all, it would be much nicer, and fairer, to see what Brexit might look like with Jeremy Corbyn at the helm.
Distressed Not Textusa tastes her own medicine whilst hanging by a wire, bends it like Beckham to score a Verdie and sets her pants on fire.
ReplyDeletehttps://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2019/09/if-i-do-this-you-cant-see-me.html
Anonymous10 September 2019 at 13:17
Not Textusa10 September 2019 at 20:06
Anonymous11 September 2019 at 18:29
Not Textusa11 September 2019 at 20:02
Has the Bender had the last word, I wonder?
Anonymous 20 September at 10:34
DeleteYou are right in thinking that NT's analogy allows for up to eight contributors, not five. It's just basic mathematics.
Met vriendelijke groet.
Anonymous20 September 2019 at 10:34 at 18:06
DeleteWonder no more, my friend.
My unpublished ‘last words’:
“Anonimous12 September 2019 18:06
Thank you, NT
“Bugger off with the passive/aggressive crap, Ag”
Nice one. You speak as a scientist, I take it… :) Could never help loving your sense of humour and turn of phrase. Ain’t nobody loves you better! How do you do it?
I suppose the “last time” you are referring to was when you refused to publish a couple of my courteous, factual comments, thereby denying me the right to reply – the very right in whose defence you, in your inimitable way so many have been trying to imitate, have said so much over the years.
It was entirely for your benefit that I provided the links which do not function properly. You asked for comments on your blog’s new UI.
My curiosity is insatiable. :)
Regards
Ag”
Thank you kindly.
Ag
Anonymous22 September 2019 at 13:12
DeleteThanks, Ag. It’s a very agreeable comment. Would you mind posting here the two comments you’ve mentioned NT didn’t publish, I’d like to see what he has been censoring? I hope Ros wouldn’t mind.
Cheers.
The “All I am interested in is the truth” Red-nosed Fool makes a fool of fools?
DeleteI've been flicking through Not Textusa’s longwindathons, trying to decide which of her errors to tackle, when it suddenly occurred to me that there is what seems to be a falsehood, possibly the most telling she has ever put forward, that needs translating into a human language. And that's up against some stiff competition.
‘When is a liquid not a liquid?’ by Not Textusa 29 May 2015
“Air moves inside a room. The scent will often accumulate in an area.”
“The contamination is gaseous and a mix of different molecules”
Not Textusa has been repeating this for years. There can be no doubt that she understands she is dealing with gaseous substances here.
But once in a while, along comes a post so nonsensical that it breaks new ground, sets a new benchmark and makes one forget every erroneous post that has gone before.
Here is such a post:
‘Stupid is as stupid does’ [The irony of it!] by Not Textusa 31 May 2018
Not Textusa 1 June 2018 at 15:19
…
“I don't know if this helps, but the ability of any substance to have an odour depends on it releasing molecules into the air. An odour is detected when those molecules react with receptors in the nose. Unless you liquify a substance and spray it up your nose - please don't try this at home - the only way it comes into contact with your scent receptors is in a gas or vapour phase.
Once the molecules released by the substance - in this example, blood - are in the atmosphere, they don't just hang about in an orderly way, waiting for a set of nostrils. Do you remember learning at school about something called “Brownian motion”? Basically it describes the random movement of particles suspended in a gas or liquid, such as the air, whey they get bumped about and collide with other particlesThis is why a dog might alert to residual scent in a room at a spot which does not relate to the original location of the substance, but where Brownian motion has caused the particles to accumulate.
I'm sorry I can't give you a more specific answer, but if I did it would be nothing more than speculation; guesswork, even.”
More specific answer than what? Or dear, she obviously has lost the plot and doesn’t realise that the ‘answer’ she’s given is nothing like what she thinks it is. She appears to know surprisingly little for a scientist of her advanced years. I mean, this is not difficult science. It's bloody basic.
I acknowledge Not Textusa’s very considerable contribution to all of the above.
PS
Vapour is a gas of a substance that is often liquid or solid under ordinary conditions: water vapour, mercury vapour, VOC (emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids).
Some unique properties of a gas:
It uniformly fills its container.
It mixes completely and homogenously with other gases (a homogeneous mixture has the same composition throughout).
Start with GCSE/A level Physics
See also:
The Kinetic Theory of Gases
Concentration gradient
The net movement of molecules from regions of high concentration to regions of lower concentration
Diffusion of gases
T
Anonymous22 September 2019 at 20:23
DeleteHello, friend
I wouldn’t mind at all. It would take a bit of space on the blog. I’m waiting for Ros to indicate that she wouldn’t mind.
Ros, would you mind?
Thank you and have a good day.
Ag
https://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2019/09/if-i-do-this-you-cant-see-me.html
Delete"If I do this, you can’t see me
Anonymous27 September 2019 at 10:13
Can you please comment on this:
http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/09/im-delighted-libdems-have-decided-on.html?showComment=1569321031203#c4421980136393468185
Replies
Not Textusa27 September 2019 at 15:19
Not particularly. If it helps Ag and "T" get through the day, I feel I have done my bit.
Bye bye
Anonymous27 September 2019 at 17:42
Thanks for your reply which leaves me none the wiser.
Not Textusa27 September 2019 at 22:45
Fabulous. You take care now."
Powerful stuff from Not Textusa, I think you'll agree.
Diffusion prevails!
Delete@28.09 12:01
DeleteI do. She's got nice lips, a powerful tongue, and she smells of colitas.
On a dark desert highway
Cool wind in my hair
Warm smell of colitas
Rising up through the air
Up ahead in the distance
I saw a shimmering light
My head grew heavy and my sight grew dim
I had to stop for the night
There she stood in the doorway
I heard the mission bell
And I was thinking to myself
"This could be Heaven or this could be Hell"
Then she lit up a candle
And she showed me the way
There were voices down the corridor
I thought I heard them say
Her mind is Tiffany-twisted
She got merciless bends
She got a lot of pretty, pretty boys
She calls friends
One should not give a poisoner medicine,
DeleteA conjurer fine apparatus, nor
A rifle to a melancholic bore.
Since there has been no rebuttal from Not Textusa with regard to the contention that diffusion trumps her ‘explanation’, W H Auden’s “A red-nosed Fool who makes a fool of fools” befits NT to a T. Consonance is thrice nice twice. :)
Twice “TT” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePpPVE-GGJw
NB AFAIK, the fact that diffusion must have been at work in the McCanns humble abode has not been hitherto considered in detail. We will discuss this soon, my friends, won’t we?
Peace
T
_ _ _ _ _
Come now, comrade Zoro, I’ve been loving you too long, I don’ wanna stop now, my dear. It’s starting to hurt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FT7VkHBYaA
Diffusion prevails!
DeleteWe are the Sherlock Holmes English-speaking Vernacular
God save Fu Manchu, Moriarty and Dracula
We are the Office Block Persecution Affinity
God save little shops and Not Textusa’s virginity
Danny, a member of the Village Green Preservation Society, the Champion of the World
Had read the comments here and posted today at about 11:07 on https://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2019/09/if-i-do-this-you-cant-see-me.html
Deletethe following:
So, NT, you accept that prior to Eddie and Keelar’s arrival there, diffusion had been at work in 5A? Thanks. Al
T, are you Textusa?
DeleteAnonymous3 October 2019 at 08:25
DeleteOh bless… I’m not, as far as I know, but he and I are One, in Christ and in Tao. Actually, Oneness in Tao is somewhat complicated :)
May I enquire as to what prompted you to ask?
T
T, Textusa published some posts from here on her blog.
DeleteCoud you explain the significance of diffusion in 5A please?
Thanks.
Anonymous 4 October 2019 at 16:59
DeleteThank you for your reply and your question.
In a nutshell: The significance of diffusion in 5A is that, at the time of Eddie’s visit, there must have been ‘sources’ sufficiently close to where Eddie alerted.
T
@16:59
DeleteHow would you explain the following?
Martin Grime:
“What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner.”
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
Anonymous8 October 2019 at 09:19
DeleteThank you for your question.
My explanation would be that Martin Grime was mistaken.
Perhaps what we have to be able to understand when reading the quote you kindly provided is that Martin Grime might not have benefited from any formal education or accreditation in physics in general or in the Kinetic Theory of Gases in particular, and, consequently, he would not, at the time of righting his report, be in a position to make a sound judgement as to the physics of distribution of scent(s) in 5A.
Whatever might have been the case, I would hope you wouldn’t mind my saying that the onus of explanation/substantiation of the quoted proposition is on Martin Grime, or on those (scientists included) who rely on it. I’m not one of those.
Respectfully
T
Anonymous8 October 2019 at 09:19
DeleteWhat’s there to explain? Grime said what he said.
Anonymous 2 October 2019 at 11:52
DeleteIt seems you are out of luck, Al.
T
Good morning, Rosalinda dear
Delete‘Anonymous 25 September 2019 at 10:59’ (‘Ag’) seems to have been waiting for your reply. Would you mind?
Bless.
T
Anonymous 8 October 2019 at 17:45
Delete“Grime said what he said.”
Indeed.
T
Have sent this in the morning to NT’s blog.
Deletehttps://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2019/09/if-i-do-this-you-cant-see-me.html
Pseudo Nym29 September 2019 at 12:07
I’d like to draw your attention to the following:
When is a researcher not a researcher? by Not Textusa, 17 October 2018
http://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2018/10/when-is-researcher-not-researcher.html
“Pseudo Nym18 October 2018 at 21:15
Thank you. I thought it best to ask first.
Some might not like our choice of words. Personally I'd sooner see a factual post written with colourful language, than lies written in language as dull as dishwater. Horses for courses.
Now then...
Here's a challenge for YOU Lizzy. I see your members are being led to believe, this is a pro McCann blog, as with your lies yesterday, you know this isn't the case. I challenge YOU, and your sycophantic crew of hypocrites, to debate any post here, and show it's anything but factual, and based upon the findings of the PJ, or as with a lot of matters you have no understanding of...science. Hell, it took us three days to teach you how Eddie and Keela worked. Top researcher.
Instead of bleating on about respect, take on the challenge. You've led people up the garden path for too long.”
Horses for courses?
Now then…
You’ve got what you wished for: your challenge has been accepted. Is your ‘29 September 2019 at 12:07’ comment a scientific reply?
I'm finding this thread confusing to be sure, probably because I was not there at the start.
DeleteRegardless, I have no problem with AG or anyone who wants to expand their replies, there is clearly an audience :)
Anonymous 9 October 2019 at 18:25
DeleteOh yes! ‘PN’, the more impertinent and loquacious of the two mendacious nymphs, the very one whose own blog is a comedy of errors. Well, they say Narren bedürfen der Schellen nicht
I shouldn’t think your comment, in the circumstances, has the remotest of chances of appearing on Not Textusa’s blog.
Mind you, I may be wrong.
“Not Textusa 31 October 2018 at 18:24
I try to publish every comment unless it is:
1. Abuse aimed at another poster
2. Libel or gratuitously offensive.
If anyone ever feels this has not been fairly applied, they are welcome to submit another comment or email me.”
Rather unambiguous, don’t you think? But let’s wait and see. And then there may be three: ‘Ag’, ‘Al’ and your good self.
What sets Rosalinda’s blog apart is that here you get to say you piece, amicably.
Good luck, my friend.
Peace.
T
T obviously has a grudge against Not Textusa and so do some others.
Delete@10 October 2019 at 18:35
DeleteMan findet bald einen Stecken, wenn man einen Hund schlagen will.
The Hound of the Baskervilles
Anonymous10 October 2019 at 15:14
DeleteBehold, the Bride comes at night!
“Not Textusa10 October 2019 at 23:28
Whoever the dickhead was who left a comment relating to another comment left on 29th September, you don't appear to have the faintest idea what you are trying to say - it bears no relationship to that comment whatsoever. Have another try, eh?
Not Textusa11 October 2019 at 19:51
Dear dickhead,
do carry on, it's amusing to watch you digging a deeper hole, seemingly oblivious to the fact that you are standing in one.
Timewasting arseholes. Tsk.”
Charming. Tsk. Now there are three (four?).
T,
DeleteFrom Textusa’s blog:
“Anonymous8 October 2019 at 09:19
@16:59
How would you explain the following?
Martin Grime:
“What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner.”
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm
******
Anonymous8 October 2019 at 14:01
Anonymous8 October 2019 at 09:19
Thank you for your question.
My explanation would be that Martin Grime was mistaken.
Perhaps what we have to be able to understand when reading the quote you kindly provided is that Martin Grime might not have benefited from any formal education or accreditation in physics in general or in the Kinetic Theory of Gases in particular, and, consequently, he would not, at the time of righting his report, be in a position to make a sound judgement as to the physics of distribution of scent(s) in 5A.
Whatever might have been the case, I would hope you wouldn’t mind my saying that the onus of explanation/substantiation of the quoted proposition is on Martin Grime, or on those (scientists included) who rely on it. I’m not one of those.
Respectfully
T
******
Anonymous8 October 2019 at 17:45
Anonymous8 October 2019 at 09:19
What’s there to explain? Grime said what he said.
****
Anonymous9 October 2019 at 09:28
Anonymous 8 October 2019 at 17:45
“Grime said what he said.”
Indeed.
T
*****
We disagree with T. As we have said in the post, those words were said right after the search and were not a written report.
As we have also said in the post, there’s no mention of diffusion by Martin Grime in his written report. That’s why we think it was simply a suggestion made at the moment to explain the apparent oddity of the alert being where it was, when it would be expected that if there was to be an alert, it would have been in the bedroom where Maddie was supposed to have slept in and not in the parents’ bedroom.”
Could you answer please?
Re Not Textusa11 October 2019 at 19:51
DeleteWas it you again, Al?
Textusa blog
DeleteAnonymous10 Oct 2019, 23:03:00
I’m fascinated by this person T and also Al, who seem to have taken on NT and made him retreat.
They haven’t made comments on your blog but have used Christobel as NT won’t publish on his!
Textusa11 Oct 2019, 11:09:00
Anonymous 10 Oct 2019, 23:03:00,
We must confess we are too!
Please don't forget Ag who brought his/her questions right into Bridget’s (��������) Normalised Toilet blog and thus earned the right of getting and his (yes, his) trademark reply of “you can s*d off” to pertinent questions! ��������
Anonymous12 Oct 2019, 14:53:00
T has been on Hutton’s blog for years under different aliases (Winnie-the-Pooh, Winns, Pooh, Poo, Mao. Tze, Chairman Mao, Major Tom, some foreign names, etc). Liked by Hutton, is a friend of ZiggySawdust. Polite, behaves, doesn’t let go.
I won’t forget Ag. I hope to hear more from her/him.
Anonymous12 Oct 2019, 18:39:00
Please tell me what’s wrong with my comment sent today at 11:58 that you’ve withheld it.
Textusa12 Oct 2019, 19:49:00
This was your comment:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Blood and the EVR dog - Part 6":
I think it would be good to put questions on Hutton’s blog. It seems she wouldn’t mind, she said so.
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 12 Oct 2019, 11:58:00
*****
The reason we did not publish was simply to not give an excuse to the gang to use the argument that we have now “allied” ourselves to Cristobell.
We believe that T, Ag and Al will continue to publish there interesting comments and if we see any that we find useful to the case, we will bring them over to the blog as we have done.
T, are you a scientist?
DeleteAnonymous13 October 2019 at 09:51
DeleteI wish it was, but it wasn’t.:( Al
“Timewasting arseholes. Tsk.” said she who’s been for years moronically infatuated with flogging a dead horse. DO NOT MAKE ME LAUGH, lying timewaster. Tsk.
DeleteNurse, take her away.
Anonymous 13 October 2019 at 10:20
Delete“T, are you a scientist?”
Yes. Unfortunately, my PhD theses ‘Admitting mistakes. How to treat those impervious to criticism.’, doctoral advisor comrade Roronoa Zoro, is not in the public domain. :)
T
Anonymous 13 October 2019 at 01:25
DeleteWhat is your question?
T
Re Anonymous 13 October 2019 at 01:25
Delete“T,
From Textusa’s blog:
…
[1] “We disagree with T. As we have said in the post, those words were said right after the search and were not a written report.”
[2] “…there’s no mention of diffusion by Martin Grime in his written report.”
[3] “That’s why we think it was simply a suggestion made at the moment to explain the apparent oddity of the alert being where it was, when it would be expected that if there was to be an alert, it would have been in the bedroom where Maddie was supposed to have slept in and not in the parents’ bedroom.”
Could you answer please?”
[1] Disagreeing with T is not a problem as far as I’m concerned. What concerns me is whether what Martin Grime said in his official capacity stands up to scrutiny.
[2] Agreed. There isn’t, but this is irrelevant to my argument.
[3] With respect, putting our thoughts aside for now, I don’t know of any evidence that Martin Grime had been made aware by anyone of such expectations, or that he had, of his own accord, had such expectations prior to Eddie’s alerts in 5A, or thereafter. In any case, what he said about the concentration of smell is wrong, in my opinion. Besides, Martin Grime’s own or received expectations have no significant bearing on whether Not Textusa’s explanation is correct or not.
T
PS I would provisionally say that a scientist had been relying on a particular Martin Grime’s statement and, ultimately, referred to that statement in her attempt to give credence to her own contention that Brownian motion had effected, in unpredictable parts of the total volume of air in 5A, an increase of concentration of those airborne molecules whose reaching Eddie’s olfactory receptors resulted in Eddie’s alerting.
It should suffice to point out three errors. Firstly, Brownian motion is the random movement of macro particles (say, dust) within a domain of randomly moving micro particles (molecules, say, air). Secondly, Martin Grime was wrong to say as he did. And thirdly, it is logically fallacious to insist that a deductive assertion from two false premises is true.
It is useful to recall that in a mixture of gases each gas behaves as if it were the only one there. Also, there are good reasons to suppose that what Eddie alerted to is most likely to have been a mixture of several VOCs in a gaseous state (gases).
So far only inexcusable abuse has emanated from Not Textusa’s quarters. Knowing her proclivity to deal with uncomfortable question on the spot, one would be ill-advised to hold breath in anticipation of her breaking her silence on this matter any time soon.
I would be most grateful for any criticism of my arguments. “Let the best evidence win!”
Thank you very much.
T, why quotation marks “Let the best evidence win!“? And how sure are you that you are right?
Delete@16:20
DeletePenultimate paragraph
Read ‘questions’, not ‘question’
T
Anonymous 15 October 2019 at 18:19
Delete“T, why quotation marks “Let the best evidence win!“?”
I quoted ‘Phoebe’ as Not Textusa had done having expressed her strong approval of ‘Phoebe’s’ stance.
“And how sure are you that you are right?”
If J C Maxwell, L Boltzmann, W Pauli and many others are right with regard to the Kinetic Theory of Gases in general and Diffusion of Gases in particular, then Not Textusa is wrong,
Speaking of myself, I’m known to have made mistakes, I admit. I try to learn from them as much as I can.
Luckily for me, the onus of proof in this case is not on me, but on Not Textusa. I have alleged that she is wrong and given my reasons, and it’s up to her to say she isn’t and provide evidence that her ‘explanation’ is not what I allege it is.
I welcome criticism.
What are your thoughts, my frienf, if I may ask?
“Let the best evidence win”
‘Phoebe’ [Helluva cool chick. Must be a goddess. Sure argues like one. :) T]
Regards.
T
T, from Textusa’s blog
Delete“Textusa25 Oct 2019, 17:44:00
Anonymous 25 Oct 2019, 17:01:00,
We think you refer to this comment from T on Crostobell’s blog:
“Anonymous15 October 2019 at 16:20
“ Textusa25 Oct 2019, 17:46:00
T: [1] Disagreeing with T is not a problem as far as I’m concerned. What concerns me is whether what Martin Grime said in his official capacity stands up to scrutiny.
Our comment: Of course it stands. He has raised a possibility and the fact that the possibility didn’t materialise doesn’t in any way mean that the possibility mentioned wasn’t real and shouldn’t be considered.
*****
T: [2] Agreed. There isn’t, but this is irrelevant to my argument.
Our comment: Disagree. The fact that he mentions the possibility in a first impression and then doesn’t consider it in his report is, in our opinion, a clear indication that he understood that the possibility he raised in a first moment, was not, after consideration, what was really happening in that room.
As we said above, the possibility was real, it just didn’t happen.
*****
T: [3] With respect, putting our thoughts aside for now, I don’t know of any evidence that Martin Grime had been made aware by anyone of such expectations, or that he had, of his own accord, had such expectations prior to Eddie’s alerts in 5A, or thereafter. In any case, what he said about the concentration of smell is wrong, in my opinion. Besides, Martin Grime’s own or received expectations have no significant bearing on whether Not Textusa’s explanation is correct or not.
Our comment: Agree that it was wrong. He said it in a first moment as a possibility. A possibility that did not materialise. However, we think he was correct in mentioning it.
We think T and we agree on what matters: there was no DIFFUSION in that room. Where Eddie alerted was where the source of the scent was, taking into account that we are talking about a strong scent..”
Anonymous25 October 2019 at 18:42
DeleteThanks.
Textusa: “Our comment: Disagree. The fact that he [ M Grime T] mentions the possibility…”
What Grime mentions is not a possibility, it is an impossibility. That’s what’s important.
Textusa: “We think T and we agree on what matters: there was no DIFFUSION in that room.”
I don’t know how Textusa arrived at that conclusion, for It is the opposite of what I’d said It’s not a matter of my opinion, it’s physics.
Textusa: “Where Eddie alerted was where the source of the scent was…”
I have no doubt that’s what happened. There must have been a ‘source’ where he alerted. Why the ‘source’ happened to be where it was is another matter.
Textusa: “…we are talking about a strong scent.”
Yes, in the sense that it was strong enough for Eddie to alert. A great dog he was, bless him.
T
re @11:02
Delete"...for it is the opposite of what I’d said. It’s not a matter of my opinion, it’s physics."
T
T, on Textusa blog:
DeleteAnonymous31 Oct 2019, 16:28:00
Please tell me why my following post of 29 October 17:56 has not appeared on the blog:
Taxtusa, T has commented @ 29 October 2019 at 11:02 on what you said.
http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2019/09/im-delighted-libdems-have-decided-on.html#comment-form
Reply
Textusa31 Oct 2019, 18:57:00
Anonymous 31 Oct 2019, 16:28:00,
We believe we published your comment in previous post. We haven’t replied to it and we apologise for it, but as we have mentioned in regards to the Frog/blood/JBLittlemore debate, but life has presented us with priorities that supersede the blog.
We have 3 posts we intend to write and we’re not sure when we will be able to publish.
We think that you mean this:
“Anonymous29 October 2019 at 11:02
Anonymous25 October 2019 at 18:42
Thanks.
Textusa: “Our comment: Disagree. The fact that he [ M Grime T] mentions the possibility…”
What Grime mentions is not a possibility, it is an impossibility. That’s what’s important.
Textusa: “We think T and we agree on what matters: there was no DIFFUSION in that room.”
I don’t know how Textusa arrived at that conclusion, for It is the opposite of what I’d said It’s not a matter of my opinion, it’s physics.
Textusa: “Where Eddie alerted was where the source of the scent was…”
I have no doubt that’s what happened. There must have been a ‘source’ where he alerted. Why the ‘source’ happened to be where it was is another matter.
Textusa: “…we are talking about a strong scent.”
Yes, in the sense that it was strong enough for Eddie to alert. A great dog he was, bless him.
T”
*****
We can but ask if T is saying that this is a physics impossibility?
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-skX7s46zBgE/XYI1fhBJ_II/AAAAAAAASP0/8rbsJwCnZA44V4OJVy7JzXNvuHxJIKIbACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/blood%2B6%2B081.jpg
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iH7zCJOVbe0/XYI2uSikgcI/AAAAAAAASP8/QWNqvkHiR8klBNfE_tKRSz-7n4pIETL2gCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/blood%2B6%2B080.jpg
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hnJaEnQmKaM/XYI90WY8s5I/AAAAAAAASQE/5rQuIleLOf0BiUmaIoZmC2LOqhpLyXRVQCLcBGAsYHQ/s400/blood%2B6%2B079.jpg
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nlSsBTRlL0k/XYI_NbxOdhI/AAAAAAAASQM/rOFDxiTkH4soaSSF0MJVjSAK1r4c5n9pACLcBGAsYHQ/s400/blood%2B6%2B078.jpg
@20.08.19 10.34
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Thank you.
Anonymous22 September 2019 at 13:12
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your comment.
I did not intend to give the impression that the two anonymous (Ag’s) posts I gave links to were mine, but that’s a minor point.
I have no difficulty in agreeing that adding three and five is basic mathematics. However, I have no reason to doubt Not Textusa’s word that he is a scientist. He would have to have a qualification of some kind in mathematics to study for a science degree, and consequently, the mistake in what he calls “just an analogy’ seems more likely to have been logical. I have grounds to believe that it wasn’t Christian Science that he studied.
In this case, the analogy used fails to clarify/explain the ‘up to five contributors’ aspect of John Lowe’s report, for it gives a different from the report maximum number of contributors. Therefore, not “just an analogy”, but a ‘completely wrong analogy’! This may, of course, be Double Dutch to Not Texusa.
Met vriendelijke groet.
Johan van der Meulen :)
Te bendigo locamente,
ReplyDeleteTristemente mientras me ato los zapatos
Te amo malamente,
Justo a tiempo, a veces, supongo,
Por ti necesito descansar, oh si
Porque eres tú
Quien me pone a prueba
Comité de Cygnet
Soy una mujer, cariño. ¿No puedes ver lo que soy? Yo vivo y respiro por ti. Pero, ¿de qué me sirve si no te tengo, cariño, si no te tengo?
No sabes cómo es, no, no, no sabes cómo es, cariño, amar a alguien como yo te amo.
Mi alma y mi dinero que ya lo tienes. Toma tus patines, tus bocadillos favoritos, ven a Cuba y toma lo que queda de mí. ¡Ahora! ¡Si no…!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkGUt4QYc08&list=RDfkGUt4QYc08&start_radio=1&t=122 at 2:11
Te advierto; ni siquiera pienses en decir una palabra de esto a esa voluptuosa Pizzuti. Tsk. Si estoy solo. Querer morir. Ziggmund, Si no estoy muerto, Ya sabes la razón.
Comité de Santa María de Cygnet
So you miss Ziggy?
DeleteOf course. The best opponent that ever was.
DeleteT was dissing the dogs and now he is dissing Grime.
ReplyDelete@11:53
DeleteDo you always plant your flowers upside down, love? In case you are looking for a date, just let me check my diary if I can squeeze you in. Hmmm… I can spare 2min on 24 Dec at 00:17. Are you game? Formal attire, no recording and/or transmitting devices please. I love your perfume btw. Красная Москва? X
Count Bachelorius Baskerville
I came here as directed by you, Comrade T...
ReplyDeleteT..if i was partial to the Devil juice, you'd owe me a bottle at least by now...
I feel as though i sat down and began to read a book i had been looking forward to reading, then some haze come over me.Not a pleasant 60s one of Purple hue I might add;More one conjured up in the laboratory of one Michael Finn..
I was away when this thread ( and most from July onward ) was begun.I was incapable of seeing much, moving much or even breathing much.But, you can't keep a nutcase down.I'm back to my fighting weight and i can see everything.I just feel, on this particular thread, I'm seeing the typed equivalent of a Salvador Dali scattergram.The 'sciencey bits' have done little to rid me of that feeling.
Grime said the dogs were there to indicate only didn't he ? I don't think they sniffed a few corners and then put a paper together.As I understand it, they bark / indicate areas of possible further interest to the investigation and then it's down to trained, qualified forensic analysts who have the relevant Phd /Bsc etc to get stuck in and talk about the gasses , the time, the temperatures, the lack of cooling air in a small apartment and so forth.Poor old Mark grime was only there to send in the dogs and let the officers know they were alerting to 'possibles'.Obviously he'd have to submit a written report in later, but there's degrees of expertise in the area.He's a dog handler, not a scientist.
As for other parts of the thread.I don't recognise the initials and have heard of Textusa through coming on here.That's about it.
"When I try to analyze my own cravings, motives, actions and so forth, I surrender to a sort of retrospective imagination which feeds the analytic faculty with boundless alternatives ''
That kinda shiz..
Ziggy
Comrade
Delete“Poor old Mark grime was only there to send in the dogs and let the officers know they were alerting to 'possibles'.Obviously he'd have to submit a written report in later, but there's degrees of expertise in the area.He's a dog handler, not a scientist.”
You’ve got your finger right in the centre of my pie. :) Well done!
T
And thanks for Nabokov