Path: news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail From: email@example.com (Michael P. Stein) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks Subject: Those missing computations Date: 24 Jun 1996 13:22:35 -0400 Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA Lines: 173 Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References:
<email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net Xref: news2.digex.net alt.revisionism:93667 alt.usenet.kooks:41011 In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, wrote: >email@example.com (Michael P. Stein) wrote: > >>In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, >> wrote: >>>email@example.com (Michael P. Stein) wrote: > >>[much prologue snipped re energy input required to ignite a body] > >>> >>>>> But I can find the right inputs and then be able to make the correct >>>>>calculations. >>> >>>> Then please do so. >>> >>>> The amount of energy needed to deal with the water is independent of >>>>the amount of energy in the body. We do not have to agree right now on >>>>how many calories there are in a human body in order to figure out how >>>>many calories are needed. In order to answer the question of whether the >>>>body supplies enough calories, when burned, to repay the energy used to >>>>ignite it, we must compute the ignition energy. Without that, we have no >>>>way of knowing if the calories available (whatever they are) would be >>>>sufficient. Correct? >>> >>>> So take a 70kg person as your input. Is 85% water an acceptable >>>>assumption? Compute the number of calories required to deal with the >>>>water in cremating a corpse. You have claimed you can do this >>>>calculation. Please proceed. Show all your work. After you have given >>>>your number and the computations you used to arrive at that number, I will >>>>either agree to it and we can then work on the second half - finding the >>>>number of calories actually obtained by burning an average 70kg corpse - >>>>or I will tell you why I disagree. >>> >>>>[Remainder deleted to be dealt with after Mr. Giwer shows the computation >>>>he has said he knows how to do.] >>> >>> Why do you not show me how to do it. > >> I do not show you how to do it because you have said you know how to >>do it already. Therefore there is no reason for me to show you as it is >>needless. Or is this an admission that you were lying? > > Lets see. You deleted the computation and then you imply I have not >posted the computaion. I have deleted nothing that looked remotely like a computation of the amount of energy needed to deal with the water in a corpse. At least, in the English language. Anybody? Has anyone seen Mr. Giwer post a detailed computation of the number of calories needed to handle the water in cremating a corpse? Please provide me with the article ID, subject, and date - anyone, not just Mr. Giwer. I really, really, want to see it. > Why do you not post yours so I can do the same thing? I will do it after you post yours - remember, your claim, your burden of proof, therefore you first. Repost them as a followup to this article (assuming you posted them elsewhere and I missed them). That shouldn't be so hard, should it? Post the subject, date, and article ID of the article I am supposed to have edited them out of. Or the DejaNews URL. Psychic prediction: Mr. Giwer will never post his evidence. >> I also do not do it because it is your claim that you know how to do >>it, and your claim there was not enough coke. Therefore your burden of >>proof for these claims. It is not my responsibility to do your work for >>you. Sorry about that. > > You are incapable of doing them. The only thing you can do is delete >mine. You will never know unless you post yours where I can see them. You are also invited to send an email copy. >>>Post you calculations. > >> After you, my dear Alphonse. Your claim, your burden of proof. Sorry >>about that. > > I did. You deleted them, asshole. What kind of stupid game do you >think you are playing? Backing the lying Giwer-troll into a corner, of course. I did not delete any computations of the number of calories needed to deal with the water in igniting a corpse. Mr. Giwer does not provide the date, subject, and article ID (or DejaNews URL) of his article where I allegedly did so. He or anyone else is cordially invited to supply this information to document the charge. >> Remember, show your work. Posting a number without showing the >>assumtions and formulas used is not acceptable. Any lying fraud could do >>the same. Elsewhere you gave a figure of 30,000 kcal but showed no work >>nor the assumptions about starting temperature and body weight and >>percentage water by weight. Only if and when you fill in the blanks must >>I either agree to accept your figure or show where you are wrong. > > You deleted what I did. If you can repeat that a few trillion times it will become true. >Now you make a 30,000 kcal claim which I never made. This is _too_ easy. Linkname: Deja News Retrieved Document URL: http://xp4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=%3c4pvr85$t4r@dfw-ixne ws8.ix.netcom.com%3e&server=dnserver.dbapr Subject: Re: Dresden? From: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: 1996/06/16 Message-Id: <email@example.com> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org ews.aol.com> <4pq95k$slh@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU> <4psh8e$9im@dfw-Ixnews8.ix.netcom .com> Organization: images incarnate X-Netcom-Date: Sat Jun 15 9:24:05 PM CDT 1996 Newsgroups: alt.revisionism email@example.com (Mark Van Alstine) wrote: >In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com >(Matt Giwer) wrote: >> rjg@d31rz2.Stanford.EDU (Richard J. Green) wrote: [much deleted - refer to the URL above to see the full text - mstein] >> You are the one supporting 2 kg of coke for each body after the first. >According the Walter Mu"ller, of the engineering firm Allach, in regards >to the fuel consumption of incineration furnaces: >"Mu"ller claimed that there was a direct relation between increased use >and increased economy. If the cold furnace required 175 kilograms (kg) of >coke to start up a new incineration, it needed only 100 kg. if it had been >used the day before; a second and third incineration on the same day would >not require any extra fuel thanks to the compressed air; and those that >followed would call for only small amounts of extra energy..." (_Anatomy_, >pp.185-186.) >How small is "amounts of extra energy?" Two kg of coke's worth? As you will need on the order of 30,000 kcal you are not going to get that out of 2 kg of coke. That is only a ballpark on boiling out the water while maintaining the same temperature. [Remainder deleted. Thanks to DejaNews, again.] See the 30,000. So, are you posting in your sleep? Or are you (as some people suspect) allowing other people to post through your account and you are not aware of what they are posting in your name? Or will you declare that this is a Marduk forgery? > Anything else you want to try to run with on this on? Any more lies you want to tell? -- Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth. POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor