C'punks, Notice how reverently Inchoate argues the minutia of the "extinguisher" topic? The reason is obvious. That argument boils down to disputed facts and personal opinion. It's a lot more comfortable than confronting the objective LSAT challenge. Funny, how he can argue the relative impact of rockets and fire extinguishers ad nauseam, but is so uncharacteristically silent about the HUNDREDS of dollars he has been offered to show some nominal degree of verbal reasoning ability on an objective test. Gee, I'd have thought he would have jumped at the chance to humiliate his tormentors by acing that puppy. Well, I guess we all know why he won't take--or even really discuss--this true test of his thinking ability. S a n d y
-----Original Message----- From: owner-cypherpunks@lne.com [mailto:owner-cypherpunks@lne.com]On Behalf Of Jim Choate Sent: 23 July, 2001 21:12 To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Subject: RE: A question of self-defence - Fire extinguishers & self defence
On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Matt Beland wrote:
A "D based rocket" is no great amount of force. If it was light enough to go as fast as you say, then it wouldn't go through plate glass, much less a windshield.
20 N-s for a D. Figure a rocket that weighs about a pound. It's about .2s after launch (it was launched horizontaly and about 30 ft. away).
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night: God said, "Let Tesla be", and all was light.
B.A. Behrend
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------