Craig Lamson Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 (edited) Are you really that blind and that ignorant? Really now, this is too hard for you to figure out? If so you simply have NO business trying toi analyse anything visual? I guess if it does not have big red or black numbers and pretty little pictures it just files right over your head. Hint...all four margins are defined. I don't want to use arrows... BTW WHEN are you gonna show us that proof of concept that proves your silly fantasy fold works within the confines of Betzner? Edited July 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 (edited) Are you really that blind and that ignorant? Really now, this is too hard for you to figure out? If so you simply have NO business trying toi analyse anything visual? I guess if it does not have big red or black numbers and pretty little pictures it just files right over your head. Hint...all four margins are defined. No, all four margins are clearly not defined. All you did was draw an orange dot on the shirt collar. This bluff of yours is pathetic! I don't want to use arrows... You can't use arrows when there's nothing to point to. You've stipulated to the FACT that there MUST be four distinct horizontal features. Point them out, Craig. (Dots don't point.) Edited July 15, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 (edited) Are you really that blind and that ignorant? Really now, this is too hard for you to figure out? If so you simply have NO business trying toi analyse anything visual? I guess if it does not have big red or black numbers and pretty little pictures it just files right over your head. Hint...all four margins are defined. No, all four margins are clearly not defined. All you did was draw an orange dot on the shirt collar. This bluff of yours is pathetic! Nope all four margins are clearly defined. Again whats WRONG with you cliffy? Got some sort of medical problem that has warped your ability to see? I don't want to use arrows... You can't use arrows when there's nothing to point to. Oh I could, I just choose NOT to. That however does not mean I've not complied with your continuing demands to show the margins. Thats far more that can be said of Cliff Varnell who can't produce ANY solid evidence that his fantasys fold works and my unimpeachable folds fails. It takes a real azz to demand and then never comply...that would be bozo... You've stipulated to the FACT that there MUST be four distinct horizontal features. And I have shown you . Point them out, Craig. (Dots don't point.) Dots work just fine to define the margins you have asked for. I can't help your lack of vu=isual accuity. Thats not a good condition for someone who wants to analyse photographs. But then again you never have. You have just waved your hands and looked the fool. Which bring us back to that which destroys you.....time for your work to be displayed cliffy... Edited July 15, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 15, 2010 Share Posted July 15, 2010 Hint...all four margins are defined. No, all four margins are clearly not defined. All you did was draw an orange dot on the shirt collar. This bluff of yours is pathetic! Nope all four margins are clearly defined. [ Then you should have no problem pointing to them. Draw arrows pointing to the four distinct horizontal features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Hint...all four margins are defined. No, all four margins are clearly not defined. All you did was draw an orange dot on the shirt collar. This bluff of yours is pathetic! Nope all four margins are clearly defined. [ Then you should have no problem pointing to them. Draw arrows pointing to the four distinct horizontal features. Nope I 've done my part, now you do yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) Hint...all four margins are defined. No, all four margins are clearly not defined. All you did was draw an orange dot on the shirt collar. This bluff of yours is pathetic! Nope all four margins are clearly defined. [ Then you should have no problem pointing to them. Draw arrows pointing to the four distinct horizontal features. Nope I 've done my part, now you do yours What part? Drawing an orange dot on the shirt collar? How does that "define" the horizontal features you claim are right below the shirt collar? Your "part" is actually one part non sequitur and three parts bile. Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like, Craig. Not three millimeters of pulled up towel fabric -- 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric. Aren't you curious what such a sight would look like, Craig? I know I am. Why don't you accomplish that and show us what it looks like? Then, when you're done with that, use arrows to point out the distinct upper and lower margins of the teabagger fold return which you concede MUST be visible in Betzner,according to the unbendable, immutable, irrefutable, unimpeachable laws of light and shadow etc etc... Why is all this so difficult for you, Craig? Edited July 16, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) What part? Drawing an orange dot on the shirt collar? I suggest you look again, your vison appears impaired. How does that "define" the horizontal features you claim are right below the shirt collar? Your "part" is actually one part non sequitur and three parts bile. If you look you will see the four points have been defined. Again your lack of visual acuity does not an objection make. Show us what 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric look like, Craig. Not three millimeters of pulled up towel fabric -- 3+ inches of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric. Aren't you curious what such a sight would look like, Craig? Not curious as to what 3+ inchs of folded jacket looks like at all simply because Betzner, Croft nad Towner show us quite clearly. Again your lack of visual acuity does not an objection make. I know I am. Why don't you accomplish that and show us what it looks like? Maybe you should finally open your eyes and rub the fantasy dust out of them... Then, when you're done with that, use arrows to point out the distinct upper and lower margins of the teabagger fold return which you concede MUST be visible in Betzner,according to the unbendable, immutable, irrefutable, unimpeachable laws of light and shadow etc etc... Arrrows, who needs stinking arrows! Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. Perhaps someday ...maybe.. oh wait on second thought, you will never get it. Ignorance becomes you. Why is all this so difficult for you, Craig? Why is THIS so difficult for you cliffy? Edited July 16, 2010 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 What part? Drawing an orange dot on the shirt collar? I suggest you look again, your vison appears impaired. Not at all. You drew an orange dot on the shirt collar. An orange dot! Dots do not define. They do not point. Please use arrows to point to the upper and lower margin of the 1/8" horizontal fold artifact. These features MUST be distinct according to YOUR analysis. What part of the word "distinct" don't you grasp exactly, Craig? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 What part? Drawing an orange dot on the shirt collar? I suggest you look again, your vison appears impaired. Not at all. You drew an orange dot on the shirt collar. An orange dot! Blindness becomes you. Has your fear destroyed your eyesight. ALL FOUR margins are clearly marked. Dots do not define. They do not point. Sure they do. Dots can define boundarys just as well as arrows. It just requires someone with a brain to understand. Of course that leaves YOU out of the picture as your continuing posts prove. Please use arrows to point to the upper and lower margin of the 1/8" horizontal fold artifact. Nope I provided you with the graphic, its YOUR job to understand it. These features MUST be distinct according to YOUR analysis. They are. What part of the word "distinct" don't you grasp exactly, Craig? Thats funny coming from a boy who can't digest a simple graphic! roflmao! Back to Circus Circus for YOU! So cliffy, what is so hard that you can't prove your fold works? Chicken to even try? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) I suggest you look again, your vison appears impaired. Not at all. You drew an orange dot on the shirt collar. An orange dot! Blindness becomes you. Has your fear destroyed your eyesight. Intellectual corruption becomes you. You can't show us what your claim looks like, and you can't point out the distinct margins of the artifacts. Who do you think is falling for this nonsense, Craig? ALL FOUR margins are clearly marked.[/color] With an orange dot? The bottom of the dot aligns with the bottom of the shirt collar -- where are the upper and lower margins of the fold return, Craig? Why can't you use arrows to point to ALL FOUR margins? If they're there, you can point them out. One small round object added to a photo marks nothing. Want to try again? Edited July 16, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 Intellectual corruption becomes you. You can't show us what your claim looks like, and you can't point out the distinct margins of the artifacts. Who do you think is falling for this nonsense, Craig? I've shown you clearly TWICE. First I clearly indicated both the upper and lower margins of the highlight on the top of he fold. The I clealry indicated all four margins you requested. The only nonsense is coming from one cliff varnell who can't prove his fantasy fold can produce the artifact seen in Betzner and has proven he can't even SEE let alone analyse photogrpahy. With an orange dot? The bottom of the dot aligns with the bottom of the shirt collar -- where are the upper and lower margins of the fold return, Craig? Why can't you use arrows to point to ALL FOUR margins? If they're there, you can point them out. One small round object added to a photo marks nothing. Want to try again? Why should I try again? I've offered you a graphic that contains four distince points to indicate the margins as you have requested. Your failure to understand really drives home the point that you lack the ability to understand anything of a graphic nature including photographs. This renders your silly opinions about the Betnzer ( and all others)image totally moot. You have proven you don't have the intellect nor attention to detail to analyse anything. Your work is a joke! Which brings us back to this AGAIN...your burden of proof.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) I've shown you clearly TWICE. First I clearly indicated both the upper and lower margins of the highlight on the top of he fold. The I clealry indicated all four margins you requested. No you clearly did not. I requested four arrows to point out four horizontal features. These features must be distinct from one another. Your orange dot indicates no location or distinction for these horizontal features. Not even a good attempt at a bluff, Craig. Edited July 16, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 No you clearly did not. I requested four arrows to point out four horizontal features. These features must be distinct from one another. Your orange dot indicates no location or distinction for these horizontal features. Not even a good attempt at a bluff, Craig. You asked to see the four margins and I clearly marked them. You can't see past your nose. You can't even get the contents of my markers correct. You are an utter failure at visual observation. YOU FAILED THE TEST. Your visual conclusions are now rendered meaningless. You now wear the mark of visually imncompetence. Of course thats why you have lived a fantasy for all of these years. You can't see and you can't reason. And clearly you can't prove your fantasy fold can create the artifact seen in Betzner...heck you can't even prove it exists and you don't know what SIZE it is! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 (edited) Here's an interesting article in the Boston Globe about what I call The Lamson Effect -- the deleterious impact of partisan political views on human cognition. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=full Emphasis added... HOW FACTS BACKFIRE Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains By Joe Keohane July 11, 2010 It’s one of the great assumptions underlying modern democracy that an informed citizenry is preferable to an uninformed one. “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1789. This notion, carried down through the years, underlies everything from humble political pamphlets to presidential debates to the very notion of a free press. Mankind may be crooked timber, as Kant put it, uniquely susceptible to ignorance and misinformation, but it’s an article of faith that knowledge is the best remedy. If people are furnished with the facts, they will be clearer thinkers and better citizens. If they are ignorant, facts will enlighten them. If they are mistaken, facts will set them straight. In the end, truth will out. Won’t it? Maybe not. Recently, a few political scientists have begun to discover a human tendency deeply discouraging to anyone with faith in the power of information. It’s this: Facts don’t necessarily have the power to change our minds. In fact, quite the opposite. In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs. Facts, they found, were not curing misinformation. Like an underpowered antibiotic, facts could actually make misinformation even stronger. This bodes ill for a democracy, because most voters — the people making decisions about how the country runs — aren’t blank slates. They already have beliefs, and a set of facts lodged in their minds. The problem is that sometimes the things they think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper... The Lamson Effect. Indeed. Edited July 16, 2010 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted July 16, 2010 Share Posted July 16, 2010 VDS..its very funny... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now