tar

the tricky contradictory thinking part comes in when a person is conflicted and has two or more standards to which they are holding themselves that are in conflict Taking me, as an example, I always was against gay bashing, and always was, at the same time, stand-off-ish toward homosexuality and thought it less than ideal behavior. I have an openly gay relative, that I love, but would rather he liked girls and got married and settled down and had a couple kids. I don't "get" his choice. Allow it, accept it, think it is OK, but I don't embrace it as a wonderful thing. So here is the tricky part. When it comes to scorn and hate and sideways looks being a way for each of us to attempt to inform the other, of our stance, regarding the other's apparent ideas r intent, speech, or behavior, our stance becomes the important factor. Whether we accept or forgive or object or forbid or embrace, is evident in our looks, our body language, our speech and our actions. I am not so sure what the internal analogues to scorn and sideways looks and anger and are and how we smack ourselves on the butt or punch ourselves in the face, or shoot ourselves or put ourselves in jail, when we have an inappropriate thought of varying degrees of severity. But in the case of our shooter, whatever was going on internally came out and punished us all. no more ironic than labeling something a hate crime

Well sure I would agree disarray, that is why I object to being labeled a hater, when I already hate the hater and would fight to the death to protect a gay person, especially a relative, from bodily or psychological harm focused on them because of their choice of sexual partner. We absolutely have protected gay people and handicapped people and any "kind" of person, from being persecuted in this country. We have made such laws. This is where I as a law abiding citizen of the United States see a contradiction between our laws and Sharia law on the issue of being gay. I do not see it as me being contradictory in my thinking. Anybody that beats up a gay person, or denies them employment or curtails any of their civil liberties is breaking the law, and deserves my scorn. I can impose this standard on my neighbor or on you because they and you are citizens of the U.S. and must abide by the laws we together agree upon, under which to operate.

disarray, But here we are getting to what hate is about. You for instance have a certain feeling for gays or against them. You have decided being gay is OK and that only people who also feel being gay is OK are good people. Then you equate people in the U.S. who are uncomfortable with sexual confusion, with fundamentalist Muslims who are, recently, throwing gay people from the tops of buildings. Here is my contention in this thread. That we compartmentalize, within our own being, that which we accept and hold and maintain as good, and that which we reject and fight and dismiss as bad. . When we see something that we reject, being exhibited by another person, or see a slippery slope developing where bad stuff is going to occur, we try to stop it. This is called hate, when the thing you are thinking is bad, is something the other person has accepted as good. The world is moving very fast, agreements and rules have changed what is bad and good, what was rejected is now acceptable, what was acceptable is now rejected. And different traditions allow certain things that other traditions ban and consider mortal sin, and certain traditions ban what others accept, and even glorify. But in the U.S. we have made a point of allowing people to follow their own god, which I, for this discussion am considering allowing each person to have their own internal calculus for what is right and what is wrong...as long as the rule of law is followed and one does not interfere with another's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, in the pursuit of your own. That is, I can find homosexuality useless and anal sex disgusting, and conduct my life accordingly, as long as I don't throw gays off of buildings, or take any civil rights away from them and I will satisfy my role as being a good loving fellow citizen with both those citizens who are gay and those who are straight. Same as I can trim a Christmas tree, and love and protect the family next door with a menorah in the window. Now extend this thought, this thought that I am allowed my internal calculus and you are allowed your internal calculus to the drift in this thread, whereby I am not allowed my internal calculus, and according to dimreeper, if I don't change my ways, and adopt his internal calculus I will never know peace. Or to your thought Reduce dogmatism and religious elitism •Encourage tolerance through education, the media, legislation, discussions, etc. •Try to find common ground between people and give them common tasks and goals that encourage bonding and understanding •Identify and expose hypocrisy This all suggests that I am in error and need to be disciplined. And the correct way to be good is to be undogmatic, unreligious, tolerant, educated, open to discussion, in favor of compromise and unity and understanding, and aware of contradictions and conflicts in ones own thinking and moral code...which are all already considerations I have registered in my "good" column and things I already consider I am doing the right way. So, there has been a certain thread in political discussions of the day of hate and fear belonging to conservatives and love and acceptance belonging to progressives. In reality all four belong to us all. Regards, TAR we each and all have a "good" compartment and a "bad" compartment in which we place various people and processes and ideas and actions and circumstances, as we go along

disarray, Maybe. I am just exploring the nature of hate, as a check on the behavior of others that wish to hurt you or that transgress your rules of behavior. I am not sure how to unwind the shooter thing, and his sexual confusion, and the hatred his father and wife and his religion had for his sexual behavior. But when faced with such a slaughter, everybody wants to find the cause, and find the solution. I am thinking I am on the side of those who would like to find a solution, and I am leaning toward "hating" ISIS. But if its entirely due to Muslim's needing to kill gays then I am not sure how to proceed. I suppose it is ok to try and eliminate people that want to eliminate you. Regards, TAR But I was just wondering...is one of the reasons fundamentalist Muslims hate the U.S. because we don't hate gays?

Thread, Yes the gun control debate belongs in politics, but I brought it here, because at first, before we knew anything about the killer in Orlando, people thought it was a hate crime against gay people perpetrated by the NRA and the republicans. The religious right has a thing about marriage between a man and a woman, but there is a big difference between shaking your head at a homosexual, and wanting to kill them. The president immediately went after the right wing and the NRA and the democrats turned to civil disobedience, and taking pictures of the chamber against policy, to demand something be done and common sense gun reform was the answer to the problem and right wing hate was the cause of the problem. After finding out the killer was doing it in the name of the Caliph, and that he had visited the club a dozen times, nobody retracted their false accusation of right wing, republican hate being the cause. Regards, TAR Let me try to illustrate my point about hating the hater, by imagining that we have all listened to John and Oko and are living in peace and love, without borders or nations, nothing to kill and die for, All of us in full understanding...except for this one guy. We will call him TAR. He is not on board and just will not go along. How would we feel about him, if was running around sowing hatred, killing people, stealing, raping, torturing and otherwise messing up the utopia. Would we tolerate the guy?

I have a personal story that has taught me to be careful about possibly ruining somebody's life because of suspicion. A crazy neighbor once got into a yelling match with my wife over the neighbor's dog barking at my wife. Later the neighbor attempted suicide and was rescued by neighbors and first responders. I heard later that she told people that she had seen me abusing my daughters in my garage, that was right across the road from her house. I did not do anything of the kind. But had people believed her, I could have been a "suspected" child abuser, which might affect my employment opportunities and put me on a domestic violence or sex abuser watch list. I would not be able to babysit your kid, or chaperone a 5th grade activity night as I did a few days ago. And if we decided to write laws to prevent child abusers from buying a gun, I would not be able to buy a gun. I don't have a reason to buy a gun, but I like to know I could if I wanted to. who or what am I showing hatred toward? Hateful is not a personality trait, Hatred is an emotion with a reason and a target.

dimreeper, I get your point. I just do not think you are right. Hating the enemy is natural and useful. For your plan to be effective the other guy would have to be on my team. My neighbor, my teammate my countryman. Going by the same rules. In the case were the other guy shows me he is not on my team, by hurting me and my team, on purpose, to advantage his team, then we have conflict. Let's take a simple example, you are eating a sandwich for lunch and a hungry person passes by and looks at your sandwich and drools. What do you do? The guy then takes your sandwich. What do you do? Or let us take the example from the OP. A guy saying his name is the name that shall not be mentioned, kills 49 of your neighbors that you have sworn to protect...what do you do? Regards, TAR DrmDoc, I think it is alright to be suspicious, but suspicion based on race, color creed or national origin is prejudice. How are we to put together a terror watch list without potentially stepping on the rights of certain innocent Americans, that just happen to wear a certain garb and attend a certain Mosque? If we are just watching, fine. If we are keeping them from going certain places or buying certain products, then we are not just watching. If they have committed a crime arrest them and put them in jail, if not, if they are American we have to err on the side of being a good neighbor and assuming they are on our side, until they prove otherwise. Regards, TAR

disarray, Just lost a post. So here is the cliff notes version. I do not think semi-automatic weapons are a good idea but do not want to take them away from citizens who already have them. We already have outlawed automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Where would we draw the line, in terms of the power of a weapon. Ban everything more powerful than a pellet gun? And then when somebody gets a eye shot with a pellet gun, ban them too? And common sense would tell us not to take people's rights away, to fly or buy a weapon based on suspicion. The guy that slaughtered in Orlando, was a Native born American and a security guard and had no felony convictions. On what basis would we be right to deny him weapons. That he got called to the principle's office in grade school? After 9/11 I sat in my high school auditorium near a woman in a Hijab, or turban or Abaya or whatever headdress is was, that made me question whether she could be a danger to me. I realized she was probably an American, and I had no way to know what was in her heart, but my duty as fellow American was to assume she was on my side. We need to balance our rights to safety and security with the rights of the rest of Americans to be free and equal citizens that have our backs, and whose backs we have. It is better to assume we all have good judgement and good hearts, and are law abiding, caring citizens than assume everybody else is a hateful, evil, idiot who is against us. Regards, TAR by my calculations you have well over a 90 percent chance of being right when you assume the guy or girl next to you is a good person not directly related to hate, but a human consideration, is to have control over ones life, ones environment and ones future When we give our neighbor power over us, that is a good thing, because they will protect us, and support us, if they are on our side. There is a danger however in taking power away from our neighbor. Then they are weaker in their ability to protect and support us, AND they have lost some control over their own lives, which is a source of anxiety, frustration, anger and in most cases will result in a reaction that will not be good. Look at the effect of taking power away from Saddam's guard. It created ISIS. Or look at the result of the firing of a breadwinner unfairly...he sometimes, responds to his loss of control with suicide or goes postal. Hating the hater is not going to end hate. Empowering your neighbor however, strengthens both your neighbor, and the team.

dimreeper, wow indeed You have no clue what I am talking about when I accuse you of casting a stone at me. Regards, TAR When I accuse you of hating the hater. Or more appropriately suggest you hate the hater...and that is normal, because that is what scorn is about. Throwing stones at transgressors. there really is an important difference between what you think is in my heart and what is in my heart s And when you talk about some narrow or possible intent in characterizing someone else's actions based on your own beliefs, it means little unless the other person holds your same values. And as such, if you use Christian charity and tolerance and brotherly love as your motivation, you cannot assume that another human being is operating without having been brought up the same way with the same understanding of wrongdoing. For instance take an idea like bullying and equalizing the power between the meek and the strong through societal laws. Then break this into good and bad, and tell me which is more of a wrongdoing. A big fat strong kid picking on a skinny weak kid in the schoolyard, or a big strong country sending a drone to assassinate a foreign leader? So our president can alternately call for common sense gun laws and sign the drone orders, and claim the moral high ground in both situations. Based on what? Based on the idea that our system and moral code is superior to the moral code being exhibited by the bully AND the ISIS leader. This is obviously not an objectively true rulebook that we go by, but one based on the moral code established by our founding fathers, and adjusted to give equal standing to blacks and women not included in the original constitutional rulebook. Equal rights for other protected groups is a work in progress, with some things federal and having to do with employment in companies with federal contracts and others are different depending on the state and whether one is talking about what couples can have legal status to marry and adopt and have tax and inheritance rights and such. Not a clear cut situation where the difference between right and wrong is obvious. For instance what about a man and a boy having sex. A matter of when the younger's birthday is could make the difference between whether the jail sentence is for the older man or the person that objected to the union. Regards, TAR In any case it is difficult to call Orlando a hate crime, and indict the NRA, when the slaughter was committed by an American Muslim, with possible homosexual tendencies in the name of the Caliph. There is too much to unwind there and gun violence in the U.S. though extensive and terrible, has more to do with accident and suicide and drug wars, and armed robberies, than with hate, per se. If we are to go after gun violence we should approach drug addiction, and drug cartels and inner city drug gangs, whether Mafia or black or Mexican or oriental or irish or whatever. Not assume that gun violence is caused only by hate. Or more illogically assume that removing guns from law abiding citizens will somehow erase hatred and crime and accidents and ugliness. Now I see no reason for any citizen to have a semi-automatic weapon like the AR-15, as it only has one main purpose, and that is to kill lots of people quickly, and there are no situations where that would be useful except for revolution and protection against invasion, and in both cases, our police, national guard and armed forces have those eventualities covered, but there are such weapons out there and some people that seek to equalize their own power to the power of the criminal, have a right to do so. But protecting the 2nd and 5th amendment is as important as protecting a commission's ruling on a supreme court ruling. There remains, based on our laws, the difference between right and wrong. And transgressors need to be scorned. That I think is what hate is for. And what is right in West Milford NJ is different from what is right in Raqqa Syria.

I never said I was not brainwashed. But my schooling had to do with an honor code and the importance of not calculating your own advantage, but working toward the success of the team. Other groups, other teams have the same rules. So being on a team will define what you think is right and what you think is wrong. Thus, in my book, you can root for the Yankees, understanding completely what its like to be a baseball player, and understand completely what it feels like to win or to lose, be a baseball player or a fan. And that would include understanding what its like to play for Boston. Today democrats sang "we shall overcome" on the steps of the Capital. Overcome hate, is what they were suggesting. But they were suggesting that what they had to overcome was the Republicans. Really? How is this love? Why can they not love Republicans? And if I am registered Republican are they singing to overcome me? Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. And as soon as you stone anyone, you are stoning them. This is the bedrock of my argument and suggestion here, that hate is a human emotion, meant to show others how to be, how to act. There is great division and hatred between the two sides of the aisle these days, and one of the reasons for it, is that you put me in the positions of being a hater. And should I dislike haters, I should therefor hate myself. So when they are singing on the steps am I supposed to be singing with them or are they singing about me as that which should be overcome. I cannot be both against old white male protestant Americans AND be an old white male protestant American. So I would ask, if I am to be described as a hater, that you specify what it is that you think I hate, so I can tell you if you are right or wrong about your assessment. Regards, TAR

Thread, In measuring the angles of the crossing of the red and the green circumference lines, I noticed that I had just let the yarn sit where it fell and had not "adusted" it to meet any preconceived notions. However I noticed that the lines are suppose to go through the center of the diamond, as this is the definition of the circumference line that creates the wheel of 6 diamonds making up a color wheel. Once adjusted, I noticed that the angles are 105 and 75 just like the division lines in the center, but switched to where the 75 angles are oriented 90 degrees differently. But both the division lines and the circumference lines meeting in the center of the diamond both measure 75 and 105 degrees and logically should be 75 and 105 degrees. This may assist in determining if the division lines create equal area diamonds. Regards, TAR again, conceptually it is better to rotate this picture 90 degrees CW, putting the North pole on top, for consistency in visualizing this segment number 2 and its relationship to the rest of the sphere

disarray, Absolute is probably another thread. But, important to this thread in the sense, that if one allows another point of focus to be just as true as yours, it requires that their be this "other" point of view. In that we therefore cannot be the universe's only child, and must then not have been created alone. On a separate nit pick, "it has something to do with differences in the rate at which the space between the galaxies inflated (an inflation phenomena that really “took off,” so to speak, when the universe was half the age it is now)." does not correspond to my understanding of the progression of our universe as current cosmology would have it. I recall that the inflation period was mere seconds where the universe inflated way faster than the speed of light to an unknown size, the edge of which we are yet to be informed of...where by the expansion afterward was called expansion. Thus any change in the expansion rate at the 7 billion year old mark, would be a change in expansion rate not a change in inflation rate. Regards, TAR

I read the Koran. I get the brainwashing that goes on when children are made to memorize the Koran in school. I get the feeling it must be to circle the stone with hundreds of thousands of other like minded folk, reciting verses from the Koran. I get the fact that the Caliph rules both the political and moral lives of Muslims. I get that the Sunni and the Shite have a different criteria for what line or what credentials a Caliph should come from. I get that the Sunni were driven out of power in Iraq when we came in and allowed the Shite leaders to kill and imprison Sunni leaders. Now the Sunni leadership that used to be Saddam's guard are on the side of the Caliph, using him as a figure head to establish rule. I get him. I just don't agree with his 600 year old rules that disallow gays and make women chattel and completely disagree with the criminal way his generals operate, paying fighters off with a portion of what they steal, and kidnapping sex slaves for the fighters and selling wives to the fighters and such. It goes against any and all rules by which I was raised. I understand the guy, but do not agree with him. Regards, TAR

Does Hilary understand republicans, drug companies and option traders? Does Trump understand Hilary? I think I understand the Caliph perfectly well...just don't think he is right.

Thread, Although the area of the segments may not be uniform, the scheme still allows for identifying every point on a sphere with two coordinates. Pictured very faintly here is a green yarn and a more noticeable red yarn piecee The segment shown is segment number two with the North pole laying to your left. The red thread is the portion of the circumference of the red wheel from 30 degrees R to 90 degrees R from bottom left to upper right. The faint green line indicates the portion of the green circumference between 30 degrees G to 90 degrees G going from upper right to lower left. Therefor any number of degrees G between 30 and 90 along with any number of degrees R between 30 and 90 will designate one and only one point within this shown diamond. Each degree or portion thereof would designate one point on the designated circumference and would be associated with a great circle going through that point. Each degree or portion thereof on the other color circumference would be associated with a great circle going through that point. These great circles are shown by the threads, which are positioned every 15 degrees within the 60 degree portion of the red wheel and the 60 degree portion of the green wheel which define segment 2. Thus where two threads cross is a single named point on the surface of the sphere. The threads are material representations of hypothetical great circles through the axis of a colored wheel crossing its circumference at two points, once creating a division line in segment 2 in this picture and once in segment 4 on the other side of the sphere. Regards, TAR sorry my picture rotated, the north pole is at the bottom, not to the left. Turn the picture 90 degrees CW for my description to jive. actually even when rotated my description is wrong, the red runs from lower left to upper right and the green from lower right to upper left In the scheme the number one segment is like you are looking at the equator and there is a segment in front of you with the upper case R numbers starting in the center of the segment in front of you and proceeding p an to the right. The Y numbers start in the same spot and go up and to the left. If you follow the equator to the right you arrive at the 11 segment where the Blue wheel starts up and to the right and the Green wheel starts up and to the left.

Perhaps, but 4 years of alternately leaving ISIS alone and bombing them has increased their ranks, and caused Americans to kill in their name. And, if we should love our neighbor, we should start with our neighbors, even if they are on the other side of the aisle. We should love those on the other side of the aisle, way before we should tolerate those on the other side of the law.

dimreeper, Here is the thing. There are 8 billion people in the world. 8 billion different wills, different calculus as to who is on their side and who is against them. If 8 billion people would have been on my side for the last 62 years, there would be no crime, no lying, no taking advantage of others, no murder, no dominance of one person over the other. I was taught to love my fellow man, follow the rules, love my country and support her. If everybody would be on the same side, as me and the queen of England, and believe in society and culture and rule of law, and tolerance and all...then the towers would not have been brought down on 9/11. I could have hoped for a closer and closer world where we watched out for each other. Didn't happen that way. As a result I can not pretend I am on everybody's side, and everybody loves me and is worthy of my love. I have enemies. And if I wish to hold on to my way of life, I need to stand in the way of those that wish to take my way of life away. So, in answer to your question of how you hate yourself, I will approach it from two directions, or in two senses. One if all humanity is my brother, then likewise I am theirs and I should give up a few of my rights and some of my ease, for the benefit of others and in return I should get 8 billion people giving up their rights and their ease on my behalf. But if some individuals within this brotherhood should break my rules and lie and cheat and steal and murder and fail to take care of me, and instead seek to hurt me, I should stand in their way, and let them know strongly of my disapproval. Secondly, from an internal psychological viewpoint, there is such thing as self-hatred. People can hold themselves responsible for wrongdoing or for inaction and carry the guilt for a long time. Survivor remorse for example. Should have been me that died. I carry some remorse and self hatred for a time in Germany when I stood and did nothing while 5 or six Iranians burned my flag and tread on it. I think, perhaps if I would have fought them and died and created an international incident, perhaps Iranians and those like them would not be treading on us now. But aside from that, I think we keep an internal balance sheet of our good actions and bad actions, where we have helped our selves and family and friends and company and town and county and state and country and world, and where we have failed to help or where we have injured. Those good deeds we pat ourselves on the back for, the bad deeds we consider undisireable and seek to improve or make restitution, or sluff off and consider water under the bridge. But how we feel about our self in terms of this balance sheet is not the only important consideration, we also care how our family and friends, and coworkers and club members and pastor and governer feel about our deeds. In this I early on in this thread suggested the importance of scornful looks toward others who are transgressing. And there must be an internal equivalent to a scornful look. Shaking your head at your own mistake. Hating yourself, for that transgression or mistake. I think we want to be right. We are built to be right. We get reward chemicals for being right. And we likewise feel the punishment when we are wrong, so we don't do it again. Whether imposed by ones own conscience or imposed by the look of your Mom, or the handcuffs of the police or the bullet of an enemy, there are ways we have of letting ourselves and others know the difference between right and wrong. Problem is there is not an objective rulebook. You have to go by your own rules and the rules of your family and lover and company and town and club and church and the constitution of your country. If there is a disagreement in terms of right and wrong, it is OK to go with your own rules over somebody else's. Because your way of life depends on you following the rules of your group. Regards, TAR Regards, TAR

One day at work years ago I was in one department, hearing the story of the reckless idiot that caused the accident the worker was in that morning. A little while later I was in another dept. in another building of the same company, listening to a worker telling a story of the reckless idiot that caused the accident they were in that morning. Same accident.

String Junky, Well yes, both love and hate are blind and mute. With love, you include an entity in your feeling of self, and with hate you exclude an entity from your feeling of self. In neither case, does the entity know you have made this decision. That is why you have to show something you love it, and why you have to show something you hate it. In hating the hater, you are excluding from your feeling of self, a person who is excluding something from their feeling of self. This exercise is quite futile in one sense, and quite effective in another. If you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, you are doing an injustice, or in most cases, your disapproval, has no effect on the wrongdoer, as they do not know or care that you have discarded them. Hating ISIS does not halt their behavior. Loving ISIS does not encourage their behavior. You have to do or say something that would indicate to the loved or to the hated, that you are on their side, or against their existence. For instance, take a plant. A tomato plant or rose bush, you water and tend and protect from animals and blight and foot of man. A choking weed or poison ivy on the other hand, you pull out and discard. Then there are those plants you control and use to where your hurtful actions like cutting down a tree for its lumber or firewood allows you to build a house to protect your family from the elements or cutting the weeds to allow grass to take hold... But with people, there are many ways to show them if you are on their side or are their enemy. Build a dam with them, or cut off their water supply for instance. Or in the case of America, pledge allegiance to her, or declare war on her. To declare war on hate, you have not done a good thing. You might wind up hating a republican and tolerating an ISIS fighter. Regards, TAR

Raider5678, Easier, yes. But not as many symmetries and dual figures, and it doesn't build out to fill space...well I guess it would, but not as interestingly. Regards TAR, a layman as well

Thread, Actually the angles come out quite regular, and one could figure any divisions just starting with the 120 and 90 and assuming a smooth proportional change in the angles. Each intersection has to add up to 360 and since two lines are crossing you only need one angle to figure the other three in the intersection. Regards, TAR Still, here with 15 degree divisions you have six differently shaped areas and therefore differently shaped volumes. Although I am still working on whether the surface area and volumes are equal from one differently shaped diamond to the next.

Thread, the division lines seem to be equal length but the divisions are not regular. Of the 16 you get when dividing the section into 15 degree smaller diamonds there seems to be 6 versions. The two touching the 120 angle are more shield shape than diamond shape. The two at the 90 degree corners are mirror images of each other, the four that touch these two are in turn mirror images of each other, and the four touching the shield sections are mirror images of each other (reflected off the short and long diagonals.)Left are the 4 in the middle, the two touching vertically seem to be similar and the two touching horizontally seem to be similar. My exercise ball was done by eye and is rather crude, so I have not determined what the angles of these various diamonds are...nor if each diamond has a similar surface area, which would be the crucial characteristic if this system were to be used as a regular way to divide up the sphere. Regards, TAR

notice that as the angle smoothly changes from 90 degrees to 120 degrees as you go across a side from 90 degrees to 120 degrees, the distance between the mark and the axle point of wheel also changes smoothly from 3782 to 4886. Halfway between you would expect the average of 3782 and 4886 which is 4334. The quarter mark would be the average of 4334 and 3782 which is 4058 and the average of 4334 and 4886 is 4610. Checking back 3782 plus 3782 plus 4886 is 12450. 4058 plus 3782 plus 4610 is 12450. 4610 plus 3782 plus 4058 is 12,450 and finally the other edge 4886 plus 3782 plus 3782 is 12450.

Just lost a long descriptive post, so I am posting these pictures and then I will edit in the description so as not to lose my work again. rats lost it again, Anyway it looks like the division lines are the same length as the sides of the diamonds. Regards, TAR One half a great circle would consist of the side of two diamonds and one length of a diamond's short diagonal. Using the Earth diameter of 7926 we would have diamond sides of the length 3782. Or .955 of a radius. The diamond short diagonal would be 4886 and adding a side to a diagonal and dividing by two you would get 4334. So happens 4334 plus 4334 plus 3782 is 12450 so it looks like the center division line could easily be the 3782. If the edges are 3782 and the center is 3782 it looks like the 1/4 and 3/4 marks would also be 3782. The length between the mark and the axle would be 4058 and 4610 for the 1/4 and 3/4 mark on the top edge of the diamond and vice a versa on the bottom. The angles between the masking tape and the great circle division lines seems to be proportional as well. Going 90, 97.5, 105, 112.5 120 from 4point, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 the way and 3point.

Robbitybob1, I don't have a reference, I just remember one account describing the floor area as waterproof. Regards, TAR The level thing is interesting though. And I just was thinking that the water would make a reflecting surface and I was just imagining what that would look like. It almost reminds me of those H symbols on the relief carvings.