|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: "H Beam" Games Part I & Confusion of the Issue |
    |
|
PC contradicting himself -->>
In another topic, Quote from PC
| P.C. wrote: | " Ok, sorry to bother - how do the 3DH systems protect themselves from fire ?"
That is up to you what you build from it, build what is already and you get that, put a bit more innovative thinking into it, you already are aided just by not needing to invent something new it's there with 3dh, but your questions surprises me ---- It is not I who shal develob or answer these things,
"Can sheet metal really carry the weight of World Trade Center buildings ?"
An "H" beam consist of tree pieces of sheet put together to form that profile, 3dh can build any profile as such but the cube is already known to add optimal strength in so many structures, that you will find it difficult to point to one, that is not a cube structure, any engineer know that, anyone with a bit engineering knowleage can count uo countless of strong structures, that gain their strength from it's cube structure. |
And now a quote within this same thread now, previously -->>
(Contradicts his thread in this other post from another time previously, quoted above)
| P.C. wrote: | ----- And usarender ; starting to promote the old H beam and the tradisional methods as described in what you refere, is like promoting the Ford T model. time is passed that way of thinking, time is also pass the tradisional H beam lattrice structure thinking, times changed into genuine innovation and new thinking . When that happen, the old methods and the papers you found about them is a bad argument towerds new way's of realising the build structure.
As I read the papers you refere, they only describe the old methods and progress them as it would be done when they was new, but it is descriptions of something that lay behind newthinking and the use of computers, to calculate and manufactor the build works, in way's that was newer even possible, before the computer. |
Further, sheet material as PC proposed is not productive for such applications. He is not being productive, but wasting architects time with his suggestions and contradictions that lack structural knowledge. How long must his sharade go on. He refers to "H" beam systems and does some research on H strips on the net, then comes back a week later to say he knows all about "H strips". As I have demonstrated, the majority of sheet metal is thin and not adequate for this usage, according to the links I posted above. Now, I am not promoting the old H beam system, PC started doing this himself, comparing his 3DH to the H beam, saying it is stronger then the H beam. So he is still confusing issues, confusing everyones mind and making allegations that are not true.
He says my posts before only describe old methods. Now, what is he referring to. An attempt to confuse matters further and confuse the minds of the readers, and distract the subject away from the points I drew above. (By the way, I noticed if I show something such as PC using an old method or technology, he comes back and tries to claim it is I who am doing this. This game is evident also). Clever PC, he is trying to confuse the issues, as he has always done.
And to design and calculate something with computers also is nothing new. In the very links I have posted I have demonstrated systems achieving this with the latest in technology. Let PC do some more homework and maybe he will come up with some new idea on how to distort the topics, confuse minds and veer the attention away from the weaknesses in the system. This last time, it took you a week to devise some clever statements, after I posted. He did not answer right away, as obviously he realized the points were very strong and he would need to do some real thinking to try to come up with a good reason why what I was saying was not true. Then, after several days deliberating, now the best he can come up with is to claim 3DH is better the H beams, then claim it is I who is comparing 3DH to H beams and that I am describing H beams, then go on to claim I have described all antiquated old systems.... or that I am promoting systems out of fashion.... sincerely, his mind games and confusing the issues continues...while he still refuses to answer the questions raised on 3DH and demonstrate in a logical way that it makes any sense. And certainly no structural engineers have responded yet, as certainly most have realized by now it is a game and irrelevant. But if he insists, he can have his PC game.
Last edited by usarender on Fri Jan 25, 2008 1:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| But allow me to point out, that papers as you quote only prove my point -- these matrixes of steel beams this paper deal with, will not change much from these studies -- the earlist refere are from 1935 , and the papers refered was not many , so things has not changed much since the Ford A model in structural works basics it seem , only small small steps it seem , and the trouble that is not mentioned , the blindness of "this is how we build" -- the costs of the multible production lines , every bad thing one can say about methods that has had decades to develob to union with the digital possibilities, --- and still they has not , --- to continue using them , will be to continue building in the rigid mind of steel beam lattrice and the computer must then be enslaved in oldfasion way's of thinking, must act as support for crippled oldage conservatism, instead of being the pointer for brave new inventions and newthinking, be the saviour for so many troubles in today's world. Nip-pick refusal of the new will newer bring the salvation ; maybe God has an idea with giving us the new tools , mayby God just wanted us to have a new chance , instead of staying with the old fasion of thinking structures, that we could combine computers and construction , you see staying with the old will not bring the new wonders, maybe pictures of them, but not the genuine thing. Maby the museum as a thin skin with a tradisional house within, but not the thruout and homogen newthought structure , the struccture genuine to the core of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
usarender decide to not answer and state ;
"As I have demonstrated, the majority of sheet metal is thin and not adequate for this usage,"
Are they , then what about those that is not thin , what you say is that 3dh will do just fine when the sheet is just thick enough --- please how much nip-pick did you put into that argument -- right after you agrea you newer understood what 3dh is, as you thought it to be made from so thin steel sheet that it would not hold ; where did I state the dimensions of the sheet ? Only in your emagination it seem.
But usarender , when you must bring it so far avoiding to answer, bring it to this sharade why not stop the discussion --- all you do , is pretend you ask questions and pretend you bring relevant arguments. but all you do is to avoide to answer and uses irelavant arguments --- anyone who seen how you suddenly turn this into personal attacks and paranoid mind reading, will know that there are nothing but just more complains there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And usarender -- I was just closing my computer after painting all day, then I find you continue a sharade you been on for years, refuse an honest discussion and refuse answer any of my arguments ; then look at it this way, who do you think looks most heroic in peoples minds , the guy with a brand new idea not possible before the computers who carry the vision and innovative drive has the guts and fantasi to challance or the guy who uses any mean to destroy and harm , do not understand what he critic, become obsessed , start to lie and think it is a war against him personaly, that some other guy are more visionary --- who are the bad guy here usarender, you who avoide the important quastions, or I who was god's random pet to recive a solution in a glimpse, followed by an hour of realisation of all those wonders and nice new jobs --- I know profesional jeloxy and stiffneck conservatism go hand in hand ,but they do not help eachother , and you has not maneaged to come up with something better than 3dh, only your oppinion of it -- and newer followed by a calculation -- every time I asked one you avoide, and I guess the reson are, that you don't understand math.
So even I know that after I say , let us stop here -- you will think you "won" and pour in page after page of irelavant papers, to try silent the answers I proven you wrong with, and the answers you avoided, then let's stop this sharade , you started to bore me, and you do not "win" by getting hysteric , but you see I grown tired of the way you think a discourse work, when I get you nailed by your own arguments you start to throw dirt or start with dirty personal attacks, so do not wonder I start ignore you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Matrixes of steel beams I was referring to? Which are you referring to?
I did not answer what in my statement? What are you referring to?
So 3dH will do fine if the sheet is thick enough, but with such thick plates, we have the problem of a huge consumption of steel for small scale projects, plus all the associated assembly problems, so it still does not make sense. You wish to apply 3DH to all and everything and my point is that it does not apply to all and everything. The problem is you never state any dimensions of your steel, as you have no calculations. It is all theoretical. That is the problem. So when you refer to "sheet metal", all will understand as the link I provided above. Anything going into the plate thickness may work, but what about the beam construction problems I referred to ? You are going to assemble all those plates into beams in the slowest method possible? Not for an efficient job !
So what is it now you claim I refuse to answer ? It is you who refuse to answer PC, everyone on these forums has already said this. Now you say I refuse to answer? What are you talking about ?
And you are right, you will not deal with the issues, but go into complaints and false statements about what I said. So it is useless to discuss this 3DH with you, as you will never answer any issues raised in a logical sensible way. It is useless. Don't bother me anymore, I will let others answer this post. I ask you do the same, to avoid an endless game going on and on with never any end to it....
I have better things to do.
And I challenge the engineers who are reading this to analyze all this in an objective way and give us some feedback.
Thanks to all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
"I have better things to do."
Great , then do them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So get back to work then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You talking to yourself usarender ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You don't need to be professor in mechanics to figure out what sheet material would be suited to build this structure, it's 3dh and clearly prove exiting details about a compleatly new way to engage structures, now we has 3dh now a 3D drawing with 3D solids , can be computed into an assembly of simple N.C. cut building frames.
See how these replace hundreds of different building parts, with one material only --- then finding the right thickness steel plate is not that impossible a job, is it ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forget it, will use too much steel to erect such a structure, or to use such structures for all architectural architypes.
WHY 3DH IS NOT ADEQUATE AND PROPERLY DESIGNED, from an engineering point of view -->>
1. - Is was created by a boat builder that knows nothing of structural engineering.
2. - It will consume too much steel.
3. - PC has never produced any structural calculations to prove it works.
4. - It has never been built, is all theory.
5. - It is ten years old, and alternate systems are already on their way into the market, that have actually been built.
6. - It is nothing more then a nice series of matrix calculations, performed by a computer program, that distributes a structural grid into volumes, filling every space with it's "3dh" structural members that transverse the spaces in every direction. And it provides no structural details with calculations. It is all theoretical.
7. - Further, such transversing of spaces is cumbersome, it gets in the way, it creates interior spaces that are not free of structural members, but rather punched in every direction by these 3dh structural members, thus creating a need to resolve hundreds of interior spaces, and also creating many nooks and crannies in the corners, that one must now deal with. Interesting to note that your behavior has done the same. You have poked into every nook and cranny of these discussions, creating now problems to resolve. Your 3DH is consistent with your behavior on these forums.
8. - 3DH is difficult to build in practice, to set-up a production line to actually manufacture it.
9. - There are hundreds of alternate systems out there designed by some of the world's greatest engineers, and you expect designers to play around with this 3dh like a bunch of monkeys dangling around in a world of uncertainty, hanging from the conceptual beams of a structure never built before ? Monkey games.....
Further, -->>
11. The author of 3DH cannot decide what material to use to produce 3DH. First, he is adamant about sheet metal, now he is not SO CERTAIN.
FURTHER REASONS --->>
1. Sheet metal is not so environmentally friendly.
2. This system cannot be easily fire-proofed.
3. It is absurd to assume 3dh is a all out solution for all architecture and to keep bombing these forums insisting it is the only way. Architects design in different ways and opt from different structural systems based on the materials chosen, and the design. To assume 3dh would replace all structural systems is ludicrous. Those as the Architect who have entered into these games do this to their own detriment, and this also is folly.
4. It is nothing more then a nice structure for boats and planes but truly architects would not like to be locked into allowing a structure to form a backbone of everything they design.
5. To try to apply 3dh to many of the designs produced by architects, such as Frank Lloyd Wrignt and others is absurd. It would seriously limit these designs and the selection of materials would not match. One system cannot simply be expected to provide a solution to all designs. You cannot substitute a well designed brick building for 3DH.
6. Has anyone ever tried to do any calculation of on-site time that would be needed for cnc cutters to cut all those profiles for huge structures? It would not make for an efficient work site. Even if they were pre cut, and brought to the site, many many elements and some even small would all need to be numbered and placed in stacks in a way they could be easily found. It would create an enormous organizational task. And not to mention even the task of assembling them together. Would they be welded at joints? This would be a huge amount of work. And how are the steel plates joined on ends to form girders? The ends are welded as well? Too much work. As they say, "too much sugar for a dime."
7. We cannot simply rely heavily on sheet metal in the same way we cannot rely heavily on brick. How much energy is needed to extract the material, produce the sheet metal and deliver it to the site?
8. To allow computers to simply automatically distribute a system of structural members in a framework leads to design limitations as well. Buildings designed this way would be seriously restricted in certain aspects, as the structural grids would be dominant and thus certain areas could not be simply open or have large open spans, but would rather be consumed by multi-directional grids of structure. In large structures, it would lead to many cavity time spaces and even small structural corners and elements that would seem to hang in space. Therefore, complete control of the variation of architectural features possible by mixing structural systems would not be possible. Thus, the architecture would be determined to a degree by the structural system, and the range of architectural options would thus be diminished accordingly. If you cannot see this, I will need to explain further. It is quite obvious to me.
9. To assume 3dh could be easily assembled in poor African countries with no computers, no cnc cutters, no sheet metal is somewhat absurd. Many poor countries do not have ready access to computers or a machine to assemble structures.
10. 3dh was developed at the start of the 3d thing and of computers. It is then, somewhat outdated in terms of the way we design today with computers and what they are capable of doing in terms of calculations. It is a nice computer code of calculations that distributes structural elements in a grid using algorythms of matrix calculations, but is quite a simple system actually and designed at the time when autocad and other programs were quite limited. At the time, it was a nice development, but in practice is not such a uniform system for all types of design, as shown.
[/quote]
23 REASONS AND MORE WHY 3DH IS A POOR SYSTEM.
SUMMARY OF A FEW PROBLEMS WITH 3DH -->>
I have already pointed out what is wrong with the 3dH system that PC has posted several times in this one particular image of what appears could be a church or the like, that he has just posted again, in his continuous harassment of the forums with his 3DH jargon -->>
1. Small structural modules at corners that do not make sense. There are as remnants of a grid laid out by a computer.
2. A complex system of angles and pieces that would create un necessary assembly complexities.
3. A system of pieces of sheet metal that are difficult to assemble together, to weld, to create the joints.
4. A structure that could be easily achieved by standard construction systems.
5. A maze of pieces that are not necessary to make the structure stand.
6. A maze of remnant unnecessary pieces.
7. Simply, a structure that may make sense for a boat, but why does it need to be designed this way for a building?
The problem is, he keeps posting this particular same image on this forum, asking everyone what is wrong with it, and nobody cares to respond. Perhaps I was the first to attempt to respond to it in a logical way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
" Forget it, will use too much steel to erect such a structure, or to use such structures for all architectural architypes. "
Not at all ; and it is easy to prove you are wrong -- in AutoCAD one can instantly calculate the mass and surface of any entity, the function Massprop is what I refere. Oposed you usarender who has no calculations to prove your private oppoinon , I has acturly made those calculations , in fact written programs that read the sysvar yieled for any Massprop call thruout a 3dh structure and no, these 3dh structures do not ask more materials than any odd building structure , they replace building parts that is maybe not in the standard structural calculations --- like they place the frames for a wall or support for the stairs , things that is usealy not calculated into the basic structure , but as with all the other personal oppinions of yours, you again are totaly wrong, --- beside isn't it strange that usarender newer talk about the finer aspects of rendering architectural displayes, newer suggest a solution to the many who look for an answer in that niche, newer throw a formular when he write his long mails, --- onlu "oppinions" newer a profesional prove , and in need for one he allway's turn to mudthrowing and personal attacks.
I wonder a lot about this guy , I wonder if he even has any reference to architecture at all as what he say can be said by any one, who just has a computer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
To state that 3dh "uses to much material" only prove usarender don't know what he talk about --- it would be easy to realise that if realy "to much material" is used , then 3dh is so flexible, that it would yield just that structure you think you would afford, by simply computing another framework.
But to say 3dh uses "to much materials" is allready such a cheap argument, as what would other methods prove , where are the method usarender put 3dh up against to prove his words, and what about the side effects -- the easier assembly, the fact that the Solid modeling programs and the average computer, with this building system , offer something anyone can understand . ---- surely 3dh do not calculate your dimensions, but what program do realy that, - do you know of any - , and if you do has you considered that this is maybe just the treadisional way to put steel profiles together as in 1932, and ontop think about it -- 3dh "fight" or is up against systems that has been masivly supported , so many papers are written to profit the tradisional building systems -- and yet 3dh maneage from the start that challance.
All critic relate to other systems , but is used "against" 3dh that is calling apples for oranges and putting any weight to critics towerds horse carriges and use it against the Ford T , now that seem both silli and unprofesional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Come on PC, nobody will conceive of producing every conceivable piece of architecture or building structure only out of steel. To apply steel on such a large universal scale is not an environmentally friendly solution, it would use to much energy to produce and recycle, carry to the site on such a large global scale, and where supply is scarce and far away, and where the material is not as readily accessible, as in poor countries. Then you now refer to some 3D mass calculation of autocad also. That is the best pc can do. Pull up some off the shelf autocad program, spin a few mass computations on it and voila !. PC is basing all this on some autocad function of mass calculation. Now, it is very easy to take a standard autocad program and run it on your 3DH and get a mass volume equivalent to other buildings, but this does not prove anything or that your 3DH is properly designed. It does not even resolve the many problems I have pointed out. It does not prove the dimensions are correct or that 3DH is better then any other system. It simply does not prove anything. Compared to what in any event ? Compared to a wood structure? You expect now all architects to be fooled and design everything with your 3DH, consuming huge quantities of steel around the world, in hundreds of projects using your 3DH system of mass steel consumption ? This is my point PC, wake up. Wood can be subjected to reflorestation efforts and is renewable, like other more natural renewable materials, if the program is properly handled, but steel exacts a huge toll on the environment, from extraction, to processing, to site delivery, to assembly. It is convenient for many applications, but cannot be accepted as a universal standard of construction for all structures. It simply, has it's place. Architects pick and choose at will freely from a multitude of structural systems, as they see fit, and will not bend over nor kiss the rear end of 3DH. What this PC claims can be claimed by anyone, particularly by those who are not architects and who continue to deceive others with their false claims and allegations. What do we have also of hundreds of new renewable materials, products and systems out there that PC makes a fool of and ignores ? He keeps proclaiming his 3DH is on top of all of those, more BS.
These 3DH theoretical arguments go on and on. It is nothing but nice computer graphics, fancy 3D models and theory. 3DH may consume an average amount of steel, on the individual job, but as a construction system to be applied over and over to all types of structures, as he suggests, including housing for the poor, and as a new standard to substitute any building technology, or able to re-create any master of architecture piece, as any Frank Lloyd Wright house, is BS. I am speaking of 3DH consuming to much steel on a global application level, not in your individual theoretical models, can't you see it ?
And further -->>
| SDR wrote: | Per,...that doesn't let you off the hook: his list of questions and criticisms is the most complete and comprehensive one -- and, in case you can't or won't see it, those questions are echoed in one way or another by almost EVERY SERIOUS VIEWER OF FANCY GRAPHICS SINCE THE BEGINNING.
Numbers of viewers doesn't necessarily equal number of those who agree with you. The vast proportion of responses to you has been questioning. Could there be a good reason for this, Per ? Can you accept that in fact you have failed to answer, have evaded perfectly reasonable questions, again and again, about 3DH -- while insisting you have in fact answered them ? You hve readily insulted those who made an honest attempt to make sure they understood what you were proposing.
When pushed to the wall by the contest kindly arranged on another board, you for the first time addressed the possible need for additional bracing, for instance. Are you aware that all previous attempts by many readers to get some recognition of this issue were avoided by you ? Is this honest and forthcoming ? Never before this did the concept -- or even the mention -- of skins, and their possible structural contribution, appear in your posts. Suddenly we've entered the realm of semi-stressed skin design. Better late than never ?
Of all your readers, I believe I am the only one who tried to understand your thinking about the implications of 3DH by ACTUALLY DRAWING SOMETHING MYSELF, and posting it, to see if I was on the same track as you.
If the past is any indication, you will read this hastily, fail to understand what I said, and launch into another tirade -- angrily, in garbled English.
It's just so sad. . .and boring.
SR |
and -->>
| SDR wrote: | Would it kill you to pick up a pencil and draw a few things, to explain the system you seem to have so clearly (?) in mind ?
Or does it have to be projected in order for you to draw it ? Can you use a straightedge and a pencil ? Most artists and designers and architects and engineers draw, to explain themselves. Is that beneath the "humble nice guy artist" who claims so much for his invention ?
C'mon, Per -- put up or shut up. It's been a long and painful three years and four months -- nineteen pages and thousands of words (most of them wasted, apparently, to get us only this far). Why claim the moon for a pretty idea ? Couldn't you see you'd get caught by falling in live with your own "child" and making fanciful, unsupportable and arrogant claims for it ?
A bullshitter -- no matter how artistic -- isn't going to get much respect, particulary among people who make their living providing a service that depends on integrity and safety. I think architects and their kind are at least as open to new thinking as the average person, so its doubly insulting to accuse them of not appreciating a genuine innovation. And that's just what you have done, over and over.
Can't you see that ?
SDR |
TO WHICH PC RESPONDED -->>
| P.C. wrote: | Exactly , and generaly I do not disagrea beside I apriaciate you find it worth to spend your efford.
I think recursive programming -- that's as you know what is behind most modern blob structure generation is one way to bring generative building structures further. Sort of asking myself I can't see anything to hinder that --- what it would bring, how it would look or where it would go wrong , that I cn't answere and maybe it's a wild goose but, basicly it will change something as 3dh compleatly --- if it could be implamented something I think it can, but how ...
And maybe it would mean to change the basic idea in 3dh , but That I guess is the sacrifise you has to be willing to do . Still main trouble I guess with 3dh is , that much dameage is done that if I want to complete the esperiments and stretch it to the limits, then that cost money. Usarender know that .
But thank for adding a real comment and spending your time, realy all I ever wanted, has been to profit anyone kind of spark a more open and productive community. |
Now, as he sees the cracks starting to appear in his 3DH, he claims he is open to change. This, to avoid 3DH from collapsing altogether. Now that PC realizes 3DH is a bad system, he wants to change it, and incorporate my ideas and suggestions, and take the credit for it. He then pretends to be a nice guy, and to be open to suggestion and to change. This, another scheme he has devised to rob usarender of his ideas and suggestions on 3DH and then for him to take credit for it. Now he will rob all my suggestions I have given, design modifications proposed, and go on to give me no credit, but rather rob all my ideas and claims he re-designed 3DH. What a scammer. And he already claimed he had given up this 3DH thing, to go back to art work. Now, to save his image, he is willing to modify 3DH and steal usarender of all his ideas and suggestions, to try to build his own image back up as the prince of 3DH. Long ago I stopped believing in this guy now that realize what PC really is all about.
This is final proof that 3DH, all these years, was and is poorly designed, a bad system. Now, this person claims he is the creator of a new 3DH, which he developed by taking the systems and ideas from others and pouring it into his 3DH, giving nobody any credit but himself. And goes on to paint an image of himself as the nice guy, the guy open to change, to get sympathy and support. This, another of his PC Games of scheming and contriving, to maintain his image as the KING OF 3DH. King yes, the king kong of 3dh who must now steal the bananas from scientists and inventors, eat it, and show to the world his big 3DH belly, full of the bananas he ate. Hurrah to 3DH and the King Kong who rules ! A bunch of BS. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P.C.
millennium club
Joined: 26 May 2004
Posts: 2163
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
usarender, you would not write a good story ever, the way you double spin your reflections about your obsessed focus, how you newer answered the only real challance here -- to put forth a better structural system, than the one you obsessed try blame the wrongs of the intire world ; your fantasies about what Per Corell think and why or what he now is going to do or think, and most obvious, none of your complains realy deal with 3dh at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
usarender
millennium club
Joined: 01 May 2004
Posts: 1258
Location: San Diego, Ca
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P.C. wrote: |
usarender, you would not write a good story ever, the way you double spin your reflections about your obsessed focus, how you newer answered the only real challance here -- to put forth a better structural system, than the one you obsessed try blame the wrongs of the intire world ; your fantasies about what Per Corell think and why or what he now is going to do or think, and most obvious, none of your complains realy deal with 3dh at all. |
The best PC can do, rather then prove 3DH, is to make the same tired claims against others, to fail to answer questions and deal with the issues. His obsession with 3DH is evident. Who now is doing the double spin of reflections.
PC, rather then answer the questions in a logical way, goes on an on in unending ramblings about others. A pity for PC and 3DH.
Nothing by fancy graphics and all theory. Monkey talk.
_________________
"You can't stop me, my horizon is allready planned. If you are worthy, you can fly with me over these seasons. I am coming, all around the world. Just to hear the power of "I survive". I am coming, all for the sake of a better place for all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
