🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 01:03:43 -0400, Mike Sweeney <msweeney@lr.net> wrote:

>1.  When you were quoting chapter and verse from accident reconstruction manuals accepted in the industry (which includes cops, insurance companies AND
>defense attorneys,) 

I didn't see any chapter and verse.  All I saw was a blatant misunderstanding
of basic physics.

> he contradicts everything and/or denies that it exists or indicates that it violates the laws of physics.

What on earth are you talking about?  I, for one, have not done any of these
things.  Are you smokin' some illegal substance?

>BTW, Junior, before you go attacking me, I never claimed to be an expert, but I can read, and my father has a vast library including several books on accident
>reconstruction.

Pardon me, "Junior?"  I fail to see the significance of your father's library.
Lots of people have books - doesn't mean that they get read or understood.  

FWIW, I don't claim to be an "expert" either, but I've had enough physics (and
kinetics is *very* basic stuff) to spot errors of misunderstanding.  I'm sure
that there are true physics experts here who have been laughing their asses
off.

>2.  He says that he makes a living writing programs for computers, showing that
>we can train monkeys to do anything.

So that's how a trained monkey like you learned to post to Usenet!   How about
you start up NotePad and get to work on those works of Shakespeare.

>3.  When the speed was "artificially low" prior to the "gas crisis," there
>weren't nearly as many complainers even when you take into account that there
>was no internet at the time.

Yada yada yada.  At least give us some erroneous physics or some juicy opinions
disguised as facts or mild threats --  *something* good to chew on.  Haven't
you at least written a Computer Program like the masters have?  OK, maybe
that's asking too much... do you at least have something on your Etch-A-Sketch?

Cheers,
Eric