John Cuthber

Congratulations on guessing that one of my middle names is Richard, though I don't see how it matters much (it'snot as if I post under my real name here). You also got Ohm's law completely wrong, so it does look like you struggle with learning. But that's not really the point. Why did you repeatedly post in Ohdearme's thread about ohm's law even though it becae increasingly clear that you don't understand it?

"I'm not one of the loons that joins here who thinks he's always right and everyone else is wrong." So why did you keep insisting you were right when 3 of us were telling you that you were wrong. "No doubt that's acceptable if the point is belabored and the OP is intransigent, " You did labour it, and you were intransigent. You started with "When you use a garden hose, full flow (volume) does not have much effect. Hold your finger over the end (resistance) increases pressure (amps) but reduces volume (volts)." "If you increase the voltage of a circuit, amps drop. If you lower the voltage, amps rise." And again... "Volts rise with amps? Citation please." and again "In Ohm's law volts and amps are inversely proportional to resistance". And again "As to Ohms Law, that's the way I was taught. " So, you saying you are wiling to learn doesn't tally with the evidence.

Indeed, it's a lousy analogy. But, if the guy thinks that increasing the pressure makes less stuff flow (because he can't do basic arithmetic) any analogy will probably work.

FFS learn simple algebra. Voltage is proportional to resistance. V=IR Yes, because there is no way in which it can (except momentarily when the flow changes abruptly) The cold water supply in my house is fed from a tank in the roof. The water runs through a pipe to the tap. It's about 3 metres or so of drop, so the pressure at the tap is about 3 metres of water (you can convert that to other units if you like) On the other side of the tap, where the water runs out into the bath, the pressure is zero (I'm measuring pressures WRT 1 atmosphere) If i open the tap little then water runs through it. There's still a 3 metre head of water, so the pressure is still nearly 3 metres (there's a little pressure drop due to resistance in the pipes, but I can make that as small as I like by using wider bore pipes). If I open the tap more then the flow increases. But the pressure drop is still 3 metres. So, quite clearly you are wrong. The pressure is the same. It's not going to increase unless you suddenly build another storey on my house so you can move the tank further up. Just in case you are wondering why you have got this so wrong, it may be because you are thinking about the effect of putting a jet on the end of a pupe- for example, by putting your thumb over the end of a hose pipe. That doesn't increase the flow- it increases the velocity.

"So you mean to say it's volts that kill you and not amps? Citation please." No. I mean that since the ratio of the voltage to the current is practically constant, you can't have one without the other. It's called Ohm's law. I think there might be a thread about it somewhere. Also, what kills you isn't volts or amps or even power or even energy delivered but some rather complicated function of energy and time. "Volts are not the amount of potential energy between two points? Citation please." That's the one thing you got right "Volts rise with amps?" Yes, and once again, it's Ohm's law. If you insist on using the water flow analogy. If I have a long thin hose pipe and feed it from a tank of water there's a small flow rate. If I use a deeper tank and get a higher pressure then there's a faster flow. Do you really think that raising the pressure reduces the flow rate?

This post is wrong in just about every important respect

You missed the one about how old his wife was. But, when you have finished, there's no point comparing what happened 1400 or 2000 years ago is there? In practical (if not theological) terms, Both men are dead. All that's left is the scriptures. And both sets of scripture can be interpreted as pacifist or warrior. If one of them is more warrior than the other, it probably reflects the (supposed) writer's circumstances. So what? So, the question "if we are to compare the morality of the respective religion's figure-heads, Christ and Mohammad, whose examples we are to follow, the choice seems rather simple, don't you think ?" has, as you say, an obvious answer. Follow neither. But that's hardly relevant either.

Or maybe they are just drug dealing to raise money- like lots of illegal groups do.

"Just read the passages immediately before and after that verse.I" Do you think I hadn't done that? They talk of setting mother against daughter etc. That's pretty much the defining feature of a civil war.And, since you seem so keen on logic, if you teach tolerance you can't set two people against eachother- one of them ( the one you taught) must tolerate the other's beliefs and behaviour. Now we can have a look at that "pacifism". Remember, this is Matthew's gospel a he's the one who quotes Christ as saying that He came to keep the old laws- you know the currently unpopular ones like an eye for an eye, and stoning people to death. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." So, you are reinterpreting the scripture here. And it's reasonable to imagine that the more distant in time we are from Christ the more likely we are to misinterpret things. Older interpretations are more likely to be correct, Well, guess what- the older interpretations are that Christ was really did mean a sword. That passage was used as the "justification" for the crusades. It's only the new "politically correct" interpretations that say otherwise. No it does not. But the point is that, since nobody knows what it means, it isn't a guide.

It is a pity he didn't say that. How do we know you are not just making stuff up?

So not much use as a guide to life then.

Nice red herring there. Those people were killed by someone else. And, once again, you don't seem to understand that not every wrong act is a crime.

Obviously, it's a rubber sword to use as a prop for fancy dress parties. It's important to realise that Christ didn't bring a shield- it's not a claim of defence.

Well, I can't speak for "most Westerners" but I do think that Christ and Mohammed have a lot in common and that Christianity and Islam have a lot of similarity. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+10%3A34&version=KJV https://www.lds.org/music/library/hymns/onward-christian-soldiers?lang=eng http://cyberhymnal.org/htm/f/i/fightthe.htm

Other random words are available.

No, for two reasons. To be guilty, there has to be intent- mens rea and also to be guilty there generally has to be a crime and that, in turn usually requires a victim. Who is the victim in what you are calling a crime? Also just a quick reminder that the actions of the criminals are not those sought by Islam.

I really only have one picture on my phone. I took it while I was on a brief holiday- intending to send it to someone. I'm not sure that worked It's not a "smart" phone. http://www.doro.co.uk/doro-phoneeasy-607.html My old 'phone died; I went into a shop and asked "what 'phone can I buy and walk out of here with?" The camera is a Fuji XP something-or-other. I previously has an Olympus something. I'm not a professional photographer, but I am a Union representative. I'm legally entitled to gather evidence... Also, I like to have a camera with me. Have you ever found yourself thinking "Drat!; I wish I had a camera"?

Hooks don't need batteries.

Ninhydrin reacts (at best) with one end of the protein chain. If silk is a long chain (and it is) and the "end" is buried in the middle of the fibre, what would the reagent reacts with?

I know enough about quantum mechanics to know that, at the exact moment you asked that question, I was in possibly in empty space (by any sensible definition). Feel free to disprove this assertion.

I think the "building management system" where I work does run under Windows and it does control the boilers (and the chillers etc.)

China's biggest computer probably can't solve the Times Crossword. I could copy it out in a few minutes. I could even compile a crossword in a few hours. If I transmit that over the web- say I send you a digital picture of it- then that's a whole lot of numbers- but your computer won't solve it as quickly as my friend Hugh- he's good at crosswords.

Did you read what he said ? "So could my belt block fat from traveling to my legs " now, since the fat travels in the blood and the blood goes to the legs in spite of a belt or corset, the answer is clear. No the belt won't stop fat getting to your legs. So, why did you say it could?

One reason for the rarity of old coper coins (from before 1992) is that they are made of coper (as opposed to plated steel) and are worth more as scarp metal than their face value.

OK, I'm looking. She has a fat backside and chubby calves. So, it's plain that the fat wasn't prevented from getting to her legs. That's only to be expected. The fat got there in the bloodstream. if the fact couldn't get there nor would the blood so her legs would die.