The Paradigm of the Ugly Engineer

Peter Cole wrote about the graph on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst
Brand:
a pretty obvious gaffe. All doubt could have been
removed by dashing the curve

Jobst Brandt replied:
Sorry about that. Mr. Jute's approach sounded like the old complaint
that the wheel cannot stand on the bottom spokes... Only
later, when I looked up the graph to which he referred on PP39 did I
realize that he was complaining about how deflections and forces are
represented.

This is after 157 messages in the thread, in a large part of which I
was abused by Jobst Brandt and his Bumbuddies for being an ignoramus
who committed lese majeste by daring to question the great Jobst
Brandt. In all that time, besides himself abusing me, Brandt did
nothing to rein in his "friends" constantly abusing me. Now, in the
face of the vast majority of RBT posters agreeing with me that the
graph on p39 of the third edition of The Bicycle Wheel shows
compression in a steel spoke, which we all know is impossible in
physics, at last Jobst admits that he made a mistake.

But notice that he apologizes to Peter Cole for it. Jobst Brandt
doesn't apologize to me for wrongfully (and it must be said
ignorantly, if he didn't read my question) abusing me, for calling me
ignorant, for trying to patronize me, for setting his gang on me. Oh,
no, Jobst Brandt apologizes to Peter Cole for being caught out in a
series of lies, which he now tries to excuse as mere carelessness (not
that he apologizes to me for that either).

Tom Sherman says that's just the way Jobst is. I don't see that we
need to accept such a gross example of the Ugly Engineer as Jobst
Brandt for any reason whatsoever.

Andre Jute
Master bull**** detector

Andre Jute wrote:
Peter Cole wrote about the graph on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst
Brand:
a pretty obvious gaffe. All doubt could have been
removed by dashing the curve

Jobst Brandt replied:
Sorry about that. Mr. Jute's approach sounded like the old complaint
that the wheel cannot stand on the bottom spokes... Only
later, when I looked up the graph to which he referred on PP39 did I
realize that he was complaining about how deflections and forces are
represented.

This is after 157 messages in the thread, in a large part of which I
was abused by Jobst Brandt and his Bumbuddies for being an ignoramus
who committed lese majeste by daring to question the great Jobst
Brandt. In all that time, besides himself abusing me, Brandt did
nothing to rein in his "friends" constantly abusing me. Now, in the
face of the vast majority of RBT posters agreeing with me that the
graph on p39 of the third edition of The Bicycle Wheel shows
compression in a steel spoke, which we all know is impossible in
physics, at last Jobst admits that he made a mistake.

But notice that he apologizes to Peter Cole for it. Jobst Brandt
doesn't apologize to me for wrongfully (and it must be said
ignorantly, if he didn't read my question) abusing me, for calling me
ignorant, for trying to patronize me, for setting his gang on me. Oh,
no, Jobst Brandt apologizes to Peter Cole for being caught out in a
series of lies, which he now tries to excuse as mere carelessness (not
that he apologizes to me for that either).

Tom Sherman says that's just the way Jobst is. I don't see that we
need to accept such a gross example of the Ugly Engineer as Jobst
Brandt for any reason whatsoever.

Andre Jute
Master bull**** detector


andre,

1. what you perceive to be abuse of yourself is by no means exclusive or
personal. this doesn't mean you have to lie there and take it up the
ass, but jobst has been an abusive jerk throughout his whole internet
career. it didn't start with you.

2. jobst is nigh-on impossible to teach, so unless you have a specific
technical point to make when posting, he ends up reacting to the
argument, not the content - an exercise in futility for both of you.

bottom line, you are johnny-come-lately. launching whole new threads
that serve merely to vent your own personal after-burn simply waste
electrons. if you want to correct his technical errors, go ahead - it's
important for the archive. but anything beyond that is digging through
the spoil heap of the miners of long ago.

On Sep 15, 2:47*am, jim beam wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Peter Cole wrote about the graph on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst
Brand:
a pretty obvious gaffe. All doubt could have been
removed by dashing the curve

Jobst Brandt replied:
Sorry about that. *Mr. Jute's approach sounded like the old complaint
that the wheel cannot stand on the bottom spokes... *Only
later, when I looked up the graph to which he referred on PP39 did I
realize that he was complaining about how deflections and forces are
represented.

This is after 157 messages in the thread, in a large part of which I
was abused by Jobst Brandt and his Bumbuddies for being an ignoramus
who committed lese majeste by daring to question the great Jobst
Brandt. In all that time, besides himself abusing me, Brandt did
nothing to rein in his "friends" constantly abusing me. Now, in the
face of the vast majority of RBT posters agreeing with me that the
graph on p39 of the third edition of The Bicycle Wheel shows
compression in a steel spoke, which we all know is impossible in
physics, at last Jobst admits that he made a mistake.

But notice that he apologizes to Peter Cole for it. Jobst Brandt
doesn't apologize to me for wrongfully (and it must be said
ignorantly, if he didn't read my question) abusing me, for calling me
ignorant, for trying to patronize me, for setting his gang on me. Oh,
no, Jobst Brandt apologizes to Peter Cole for being caught out in a
series of lies, which he now tries to excuse as mere carelessness (not
that he apologizes to me for that either).

Tom Sherman says that's just the way Jobst is. I don't see that we
need to accept such a gross example of the Ugly Engineer as Jobst
Brandt for any reason whatsoever.

Andre Jute
Master bull**** detector

andre,

1. what you perceive to be abuse of yourself is by no means exclusive or
personal. *this doesn't mean you have to lie there and take it up the
ass, but jobst has been an abusive jerk throughout his whole internet
career. *it didn't start with you.

2. jobst is nigh-on impossible to teach, so unless you have a specific
technical point to make when posting, he ends up reacting to the
argument, not the content - an exercise in futility for both of you.

bottom line, * you are johnny-come-lately. *launching whole new threads
that serve merely to vent your own personal after-burn simply waste
electrons. *if you want to correct his technical errors, go ahead - it's
important for the archive. *but anything beyond that is digging through
the spoil heap of the miners of long ago.

I hear you, Jim. I believe you. All the same, it is important to put
on record that Jobst Brandt's behaviour is entirely unacceptable to
decent people. Even if he learns nothing, we should do it for own
civility.

Andre Jute
Archeology too has its place

On Sep 14, 5:47*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
Peter Cole wrote about the graph on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst
Brand:

a pretty obvious gaffe. All doubt could have been
removed by dashing the curve

Jobst Brandt replied:

Sorry about that. *Mr. Jute's approach sounded like the old complaint
that the wheel cannot stand on the bottom spokes... *Only
later, when I looked up the graph to which he referred on PP39 did I
realize that he was complaining about how deflections and forces are
represented.

This is after 157 messages in the thread, in a large part of which I
was abused by Jobst Brandt and his Bumbuddies for being an ignoramus
who committed lese majeste by daring to question the great Jobst
Brandt. In all that time, besides himself abusing me, Brandt did
nothing to rein in his "friends" constantly abusing me. Now, in the
face of the vast majority of RBT posters agreeing with me that the
graph on p39 of the third edition of The Bicycle Wheel shows
compression in a steel spoke, which we all know is impossible in
physics, at last Jobst admits that he made a mistake.

But notice that he apologizes to Peter Cole for it. Jobst Brandt
doesn't apologize to me for wrongfully (and it must be said
ignorantly, if he didn't read my question) abusing me, for calling me
ignorant, for trying to patronize me, for setting his gang on me. Oh,
no, Jobst Brandt apologizes to Peter Cole for being caught out in a
series of lies, which he now tries to excuse as mere carelessness (not
that he apologizes to me for that either).

Tom Sherman says that's just the way Jobst is. I don't see that we
need to accept such a gross example of the Ugly Engineer as Jobst
Brandt for any reason whatsoever.

Andre Jute
Master bull**** detector

Yeah, but your original question was posed in a jackassish manner.

All but one of the supposed "options" you gave him made him out to be
wrong, and you-yes-you are a jerk for asking it the way you did.

On Sep 15, 3:57*am, Hank wrote:
On Sep 14, 5:47*pm, Andre Jute wrote:



Peter Cole wrote about the graph on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst
Brand:

a pretty obvious gaffe. All doubt could have been
removed by dashing the curve

Jobst Brandt replied:

Sorry about that. *Mr. Jute's approach sounded like the old complaint
that the wheel cannot stand on the bottom spokes... *Only
later, when I looked up the graph to which he referred on PP39 did I
realize that he was complaining about how deflections and forces are
represented.

This is after 157 messages in the thread, in a large part of which I
was abused by Jobst Brandt and his Bumbuddies for being an ignoramus
who committed lese majeste by daring to question the great Jobst
Brandt. In all that time, besides himself abusing me, Brandt did
nothing to rein in his "friends" constantly abusing me. Now, in the
face of the vast majority of RBT posters agreeing with me that the
graph on p39 of the third edition of The Bicycle Wheel shows
compression in a steel spoke, which we all know is impossible in
physics, at last Jobst admits that he made a mistake.

But notice that he apologizes to Peter Cole for it. Jobst Brandt
doesn't apologize to me for wrongfully (and it must be said
ignorantly, if he didn't read my question) abusing me, for calling me
ignorant, for trying to patronize me, for setting his gang on me. Oh,
no, Jobst Brandt apologizes to Peter Cole for being caught out in a
series of lies, which he now tries to excuse as mere carelessness (not
that he apologizes to me for that either).

Tom Sherman says that's just the way Jobst is. I don't see that we
need to accept such a gross example of the Ugly Engineer as Jobst
Brandt for any reason whatsoever.

Andre Jute
Master bull**** detector

Yeah, but your original question was posed in a jackassish manner.

Really? I thought it had an upbeat, street beat, rappah strut to it.
I'm afraid, dear Hank, that science doesn't recognize jackassery as an
impediment to the exchange of information. But from Brandt no
information flowed, only abuse -- and everyone saw it.

All but one of the supposed "options" you gave him made him out to be
wrong,

Yup, and I was right, Jobst Brandt was dead wrong and in precisely the
way one of my five options predicted (actually, in the way several of
them predicted, because more problems with his book have since come to
light, but why count the additional ****ups when a miss is as good as
a mile, eh?). Brandt has now, after years of him and his gang abusing
everyone who mentioned it, been forced to admit the error and
apologize for it. Surely the truth is worth a little jackassery?

and you-yes-you are a jerk for asking it the way you did.

Excuse me? Brandt was dead wrong, he has now been proved dead wrong,
in precisely the way I predicted, he has admitted he was wrong, he
apologized for it. Why should I treat with kid gloves someone who lied
for 25 years about an error and hid it by intimidating critics by the
same means this scum tried on me? You're wanking, Hank.

Andre Jute
Thumbs well clear of the bricks

On Sep 14, 9:07*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sep 15, 3:57*am, Hank wrote:



On Sep 14, 5:47*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Peter Cole wrote about the graph on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst
Brand:

a pretty obvious gaffe. All doubt could have been
removed by dashing the curve

Jobst Brandt replied:

Sorry about that. *Mr. Jute's approach sounded like the old complaint
that the wheel cannot stand on the bottom spokes... *Only
later, when I looked up the graph to which he referred on PP39 did I
realize that he was complaining about how deflections and forces are
represented.

This is after 157 messages in the thread, in a large part of which I
was abused by Jobst Brandt and his Bumbuddies for being an ignoramus
who committed lese majeste by daring to question the great Jobst
Brandt. In all that time, besides himself abusing me, Brandt did
nothing to rein in his "friends" constantly abusing me. Now, in the
face of the vast majority of RBT posters agreeing with me that the
graph on p39 of the third edition of The Bicycle Wheel shows
compression in a steel spoke, which we all know is impossible in
physics, at last Jobst admits that he made a mistake.

But notice that he apologizes to Peter Cole for it. Jobst Brandt
doesn't apologize to me for wrongfully (and it must be said
ignorantly, if he didn't read my question) abusing me, for calling me
ignorant, for trying to patronize me, for setting his gang on me. Oh,
no, Jobst Brandt apologizes to Peter Cole for being caught out in a
series of lies, which he now tries to excuse as mere carelessness (not
that he apologizes to me for that either).

Tom Sherman says that's just the way Jobst is. I don't see that we
need to accept such a gross example of the Ugly Engineer as Jobst
Brandt for any reason whatsoever.

Andre Jute
Master bull**** detector

Yeah, but your original question was posed in a jackassish manner.

Really? I thought it had an upbeat, street beat, rappah strut to it.
I'm afraid, dear Hank, that science doesn't recognize jackassery as an
impediment to the *exchange of information. But from Brandt no
information flowed, only abuse -- and everyone saw it.

All but one of the supposed "options" you gave him made him out to be
wrong,

Yup, and I was right, Jobst Brandt was dead wrong and in precisely the
way one of my five options predicted (actually, in the way several of
them predicted, because more problems with his book have since come to
light, but why count the additional ****ups when a miss is as good as
a mile, eh?). *Brandt has now, after years of him and his gang abusing
everyone who mentioned it, been forced to admit the error and
apologize for it. Surely the truth is worth a little jackassery?

and you-yes-you are a jerk for asking it the way you did.

Excuse me? Brandt was dead wrong, he has now been proved dead wrong,
in precisely the way I predicted, he has admitted he was wrong, he
apologized for it. Why should I treat with kid gloves someone who lied
for 25 years about an error and hid it by intimidating critics by the
same means this scum tried on me? You're wanking, Hank.

Andre Jute
Thumbs well clear of the bricks

Whether or not he was wrong is no excuse for you being a dickhead.

On Sep 14, 11:15*pm, Hank wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:07*pm, Andre Jute wrote:



On Sep 15, 3:57*am, Hank wrote:

On Sep 14, 5:47*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Peter Cole wrote about the graph on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst
Brand:

a pretty obvious gaffe. All doubt could have been
removed by dashing the curve

Jobst Brandt replied:

Sorry about that. *Mr. Jute's approach sounded like the old complaint
that the wheel cannot stand on the bottom spokes... *Only
later, when I looked up the graph to which he referred on PP39 did I
realize that he was complaining about how deflections and forces are
represented.

This is after 157 messages in the thread, in a large part of which I
was abused by Jobst Brandt and his Bumbuddies for being an ignoramus
who committed lese majeste by daring to question the great Jobst
Brandt. In all that time, besides himself abusing me, Brandt did
nothing to rein in his "friends" constantly abusing me. Now, in the
face of the vast majority of RBT posters agreeing with me that the
graph on p39 of the third edition of The Bicycle Wheel shows
compression in a steel spoke, which we all know is impossible in
physics, at last Jobst admits that he made a mistake.

But notice that he apologizes to Peter Cole for it. Jobst Brandt
doesn't apologize to me for wrongfully (and it must be said
ignorantly, if he didn't read my question) abusing me, for calling me
ignorant, for trying to patronize me, for setting his gang on me. Oh,
no, Jobst Brandt apologizes to Peter Cole for being caught out in a
series of lies, which he now tries to excuse as mere carelessness (not
that he apologizes to me for that either).

Tom Sherman says that's just the way Jobst is. I don't see that we
need to accept such a gross example of the Ugly Engineer as Jobst
Brandt for any reason whatsoever.

Andre Jute
Master bull**** detector

Yeah, but your original question was posed in a jackassish manner.

Really? I thought it had an upbeat, street beat, rappah strut to it.
I'm afraid, dear Hank, that science doesn't recognize jackassery as an
impediment to the *exchange of information. But from Brandt no
information flowed, only abuse -- and everyone saw it.

All but one of the supposed "options" you gave him made him out to be
wrong,

Yup, and I was right, Jobst Brandt was dead wrong and in precisely the
way one of my five options predicted (actually, in the way several of
them predicted, because more problems with his book have since come to
light, but why count the additional ****ups when a miss is as good as
a mile, eh?). *Brandt has now, after years of him and his gang abusing
everyone who mentioned it, been forced to admit the error and
apologize for it. Surely the truth is worth a little jackassery?

and you-yes-you are a jerk for asking it the way you did.

Excuse me? Brandt was dead wrong, he has now been proved dead wrong,
in precisely the way I predicted, he has admitted he was wrong, he
apologized for it. Why should I treat with kid gloves someone who lied
for 25 years about an error and hid it by intimidating critics by the
same means this scum tried on me? You're wanking, Hank.

Andre Jute
Thumbs well clear of the bricks

Whether or not he was wrong is no excuse for you being a dickhead.

And the two extra threads you created to gloat just makes you moreso
of a jerk.

On Sep 15, 7:15*am, Hank wrote:
On Sep 14, 9:07*pm, Andre Jute wrote:



On Sep 15, 3:57*am, Hank wrote:

On Sep 14, 5:47*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Peter Cole wrote about the graph on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst
Brand:

a pretty obvious gaffe. All doubt could have been
removed by dashing the curve

Jobst Brandt replied:

Sorry about that. *Mr. Jute's approach sounded like the old complaint
that the wheel cannot stand on the bottom spokes... *Only
later, when I looked up the graph to which he referred on PP39 did I
realize that he was complaining about how deflections and forces are
represented.

This is after 157 messages in the thread, in a large part of which I
was abused by Jobst Brandt and his Bumbuddies for being an ignoramus
who committed lese majeste by daring to question the great Jobst
Brandt. In all that time, besides himself abusing me, Brandt did
nothing to rein in his "friends" constantly abusing me. Now, in the
face of the vast majority of RBT posters agreeing with me that the
graph on p39 of the third edition of The Bicycle Wheel shows
compression in a steel spoke, which we all know is impossible in
physics, at last Jobst admits that he made a mistake.

But notice that he apologizes to Peter Cole for it. Jobst Brandt
doesn't apologize to me for wrongfully (and it must be said
ignorantly, if he didn't read my question) abusing me, for calling me
ignorant, for trying to patronize me, for setting his gang on me. Oh,
no, Jobst Brandt apologizes to Peter Cole for being caught out in a
series of lies, which he now tries to excuse as mere carelessness (not
that he apologizes to me for that either).

Tom Sherman says that's just the way Jobst is. I don't see that we
need to accept such a gross example of the Ugly Engineer as Jobst
Brandt for any reason whatsoever.

Andre Jute
Master bull**** detector

Yeah, but your original question was posed in a jackassish manner.

Really? I thought it had an upbeat, street beat, rappah strut to it.
I'm afraid, dear Hank, that science doesn't recognize jackassery as an
impediment to the *exchange of information. But from Brandt no
information flowed, only abuse -- and everyone saw it.

All but one of the supposed "options" you gave him made him out to be
wrong,

Yup, and I was right, Jobst Brandt was dead wrong and in precisely the
way one of my five options predicted (actually, in the way several of
them predicted, because more problems with his book have since come to
light, but why count the additional ****ups when a miss is as good as
a mile, eh?). *Brandt has now, after years of him and his gang abusing
everyone who mentioned it, been forced to admit the error and
apologize for it. Surely the truth is worth a little jackassery?

and you-yes-you are a jerk for asking it the way you did.

Excuse me? Brandt was dead wrong, he has now been proved dead wrong,
in precisely the way I predicted, he has admitted he was wrong, he
apologized for it. Why should I treat with kid gloves someone who lied
for 25 years about an error and hid it by intimidating critics by the
same means this scum tried on me? You're wanking, Hank.

Andre Jute
Thumbs well clear of the bricks

Whether or not he was wrong is no excuse for you being a dickhead.

Does it make a difference that Jobst Brandt for twenty-five years lied
about that graph and intimidated people who told the truth about it
into silence? Or don't you care about truth, Hank? Are you just ****ed
off because I took a hammer to your idol's clay feet?

Andre Jute
Mythsmasha

On Sep 15, 7:17*am, Hank needs two tries to get
his pants on with the zip to the front:
On Sep 14, 11:15*pm, Hank wrote:



On Sep 14, 9:07*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Sep 15, 3:57*am, Hank wrote:

On Sep 14, 5:47*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Peter Cole wrote about the graph on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst
Brand:

a pretty obvious gaffe. All doubt could have been
removed by dashing the curve

Jobst Brandt replied:

Sorry about that. *Mr. Jute's approach sounded like the old complaint
that the wheel cannot stand on the bottom spokes... *Only
later, when I looked up the graph to which he referred on PP39 did I
realize that he was complaining about how deflections and forces are
represented.

This is after 157 messages in the thread, in a large part of which I
was abused by Jobst Brandt and his Bumbuddies for being an ignoramus
who committed lese majeste by daring to question the great Jobst
Brandt. In all that time, besides himself abusing me, Brandt did
nothing to rein in his "friends" constantly abusing me. Now, in the
face of the vast majority of RBT posters agreeing with me that the
graph on p39 of the third edition of The Bicycle Wheel shows
compression in a steel spoke, which we all know is impossible in
physics, at last Jobst admits that he made a mistake.

But notice that he apologizes to Peter Cole for it. Jobst Brandt
doesn't apologize to me for wrongfully (and it must be said
ignorantly, if he didn't read my question) abusing me, for calling me
ignorant, for trying to patronize me, for setting his gang on me. Oh,
no, Jobst Brandt apologizes to Peter Cole for being caught out in a
series of lies, which he now tries to excuse as mere carelessness (not
that he apologizes to me for that either).

Tom Sherman says that's just the way Jobst is. I don't see that we
need to accept such a gross example of the Ugly Engineer as Jobst
Brandt for any reason whatsoever.

Andre Jute
Master bull**** detector

Yeah, but your original question was posed in a jackassish manner.

Really? I thought it had an upbeat, street beat, rappah strut to it.
I'm afraid, dear Hank, that science doesn't recognize jackassery as an
impediment to the *exchange of information. But from Brandt no
information flowed, only abuse -- and everyone saw it.

All but one of the supposed "options" you gave him made him out to be
wrong,

Yup, and I was right, Jobst Brandt was dead wrong and in precisely the
way one of my five options predicted (actually, in the way several of
them predicted, because more problems with his book have since come to
light, but why count the additional ****ups when a miss is as good as
a mile, eh?). *Brandt has now, after years of him and his gang abusing
everyone who mentioned it, been forced to admit the error and
apologize for it. Surely the truth is worth a little jackassery?

and you-yes-you are a jerk for asking it the way you did.

Excuse me? Brandt was dead wrong, he has now been proved dead wrong,
in precisely the way I predicted, he has admitted he was wrong, he
apologized for it. Why should I treat with kid gloves someone who lied
for 25 years about an error and hid it by intimidating critics by the
same means this scum tried on me? You're wanking, Hank.

Andre Jute
Thumbs well clear of the bricks

Hank's first try at getting his pants on with the zip to the front:
Whether or not he was wrong is no excuse for you being a dickhead.

Hank's second try at getting his pants on with the zip to the front:
And the two extra threads you created to gloat just makes you moreso
of a jerk.

You'd better not join the Klan, Hank. If you can't even get your jeans
on with the zip to the front in two tries, how, with four
possibilities, will you ever get the white hood on with the eyes to
the front?

Andre Jute
Ickle tickle toe

On Sep 14, 11:51*pm, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sep 15, 7:15*am, Hank wrote:



On Sep 14, 9:07*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

On Sep 15, 3:57*am, Hank wrote:

On Sep 14, 5:47*pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Peter Cole wrote about the graph on p39 of The Bicycle Wheel by Jobst
Brand:

a pretty obvious gaffe. All doubt could have been
removed by dashing the curve

Jobst Brandt replied:

Sorry about that. *Mr. Jute's approach sounded like the old complaint
that the wheel cannot stand on the bottom spokes... *Only
later, when I looked up the graph to which he referred on PP39 did I
realize that he was complaining about how deflections and forces are
represented.

This is after 157 messages in the thread, in a large part of which I
was abused by Jobst Brandt and his Bumbuddies for being an ignoramus
who committed lese majeste by daring to question the great Jobst
Brandt. In all that time, besides himself abusing me, Brandt did
nothing to rein in his "friends" constantly abusing me. Now, in the
face of the vast majority of RBT posters agreeing with me that the
graph on p39 of the third edition of The Bicycle Wheel shows
compression in a steel spoke, which we all know is impossible in
physics, at last Jobst admits that he made a mistake.

But notice that he apologizes to Peter Cole for it. Jobst Brandt
doesn't apologize to me for wrongfully (and it must be said
ignorantly, if he didn't read my question) abusing me, for calling me
ignorant, for trying to patronize me, for setting his gang on me. Oh,
no, Jobst Brandt apologizes to Peter Cole for being caught out in a
series of lies, which he now tries to excuse as mere carelessness (not
that he apologizes to me for that either).

Tom Sherman says that's just the way Jobst is. I don't see that we
need to accept such a gross example of the Ugly Engineer as Jobst
Brandt for any reason whatsoever.

Andre Jute
Master bull**** detector

Yeah, but your original question was posed in a jackassish manner.

Really? I thought it had an upbeat, street beat, rappah strut to it.
I'm afraid, dear Hank, that science doesn't recognize jackassery as an
impediment to the *exchange of information. But from Brandt no
information flowed, only abuse -- and everyone saw it.

All but one of the supposed "options" you gave him made him out to be
wrong,

Yup, and I was right, Jobst Brandt was dead wrong and in precisely the
way one of my five options predicted (actually, in the way several of
them predicted, because more problems with his book have since come to
light, but why count the additional ****ups when a miss is as good as
a mile, eh?). *Brandt has now, after years of him and his gang abusing
everyone who mentioned it, been forced to admit the error and
apologize for it. Surely the truth is worth a little jackassery?

and you-yes-you are a jerk for asking it the way you did.

Excuse me? Brandt was dead wrong, he has now been proved dead wrong,
in precisely the way I predicted, he has admitted he was wrong, he
apologized for it. Why should I treat with kid gloves someone who lied
for 25 years about an error and hid it by intimidating critics by the
same means this scum tried on me? You're wanking, Hank.

Andre Jute
Thumbs well clear of the bricks

Whether or not he was wrong is no excuse for you being a dickhead.

Does it make a difference that Jobst Brandt for twenty-five years lied
about that graph and intimidated people who told the truth about it
into silence? Or don't you care about truth, Hank? Are you just ****ed
off because I took a hammer to your idol's clay feet?

Andre Jute
Mythsmasha

Jobst is no idol of mine. I own the book (as, apparently, do you) but
have only paid attention to its rather good lacing instructions on the
first three or four pairs I built. As for the math and engineering
portions, I make no claim to understand, so I don't bother trying to
judge the veracity of his claims, nor yours, nor beam's. I was a
liberal arts major in college, so I feel no shame in admitting this.

My only qualm is with your lack of couth, which goes far beyond any
annoyed dismissiveness Jobst may have exhibited towards you. And the
way you phrased your original question didn't DESERVE to be fully
read, let alone answered.

Your behavior in this thread and the three others related to it has
been reprehensible and does a disservice to the otherwise positive
contributions you make to this group. You've made yourself into as
much of a clown as Ed Dolan.