Re: TURMEL: Alan Young says "kill all the lawyers"

"Bill Ryan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Johnny, I've asked you before to give me permission
> to access your Carleton transcripts and student
> records.
>
> Why won't you do it?
>
>
> ----



I think he's a self absorbed Bozo, but on the other hand, he might just be a
Fucking Loon.


>
>
> The Carleton designation for their degree is
> "Bachelor of Engineering" not "B. Eng."
>
> Registered engineers in Canada as elsewhere designate
> themselves after their names as "R. Eng."
>
> Turmel's designation of himself after his name as "B.
> Eng." is what in other contexts would be called a
> "deceptive trade practice" by inferring that he is a
> registered professional engineer to those who do not
> look closely and do not suspect fraud.
>
> In every jurisdiction it is illegal to refer to
> yourself as an engineer if you are not registered.
>
> In many jurisdictions it is a criminal offense to
> refer to yourself as an engineer if you are not
> registered.
>
> Turmel has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a con
> man, a scammer and a clown.
>
>
> ---
>
> A few points in closing:
>
> Of the five hypothetical examples, three from Turmel,
> one from myself -
>
> The right side up bowl, the upside down bowl and the
> ball rolling along the plane, and the terminal
> velocity example -
>
> Arguably, not one of them demonstrates any type of
> feedback properly defined.
>
> The two real world examples that I supplied
> definitely do:  the clock escapement and the triode
> amplifier that demonstrate the beneficial effects of
> *positive* feedback that revolutionized the world we
> live in.  The first for the first time enabled
> navigation across open oceans.  The second enabled
> modern communications.  Turmel's assertion that
> "positive feedback is always unacceptably unstable"
> is proven to be complete nonsense beyond the
> shadow of doubt.
>
> He furthermore claims that *interest* is positive
> feedback in the physical sense, which it definitely
> isn't.  It is feedback only in the social sense that
> it is information that flows to entrepreneurs and
> their financiers.  It is defined by consumer choice
> in free markets.  It is measured through the rules of
> accounting.  No analogy from the physical world
> therefore is relevant.
>
> Now on to the question of Turmel's honesty:
>
> He has repeatedly claimed to be an engineer, and
> continues to do so.  In answer to an earlier
> challenge from me, he replied that he has a four-year
> B.S. in electronics engineering diploma from
> Carleton, I believe.  In further query he admitted
> that he has never been employed even for a single day
> as an engineer, that he has always been self-employed
> as a professional gambler.  He admitted that he has
> never been recognized as an engineer through the
> registration process in Alberta or anywhere else.
>
> But--
>
> This is how he styles himself that you can see at the
> "bowl" link:
> http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm
>
> "John C. Turmel, B. Eng."
>
> It is what in business and law we would call a
> "deceptive trade practice."  Registered professional
> engineers style themselves "R. Eng."  Presumably,
> Turmel hangs on the technicality that the "B" derives
> from the B.S. in engineering that he claims he
> possesses.  But there is no accreditation anywhere in
> the world that styles itself, "B. Eng."  Possibly in
> the history of the world no one has every styled
> himself "B. Eng." except for John Turmel.  Purely and
> simply it is concocted to deceive, to fool those who
> don't look closely into believing he is really an
> engineer.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Ryan) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Okay, I found "bowl."
> >
> > <**>If you have a bowl and you put a ball in it and
> > then give the ball a little shove, it will travel up
> > one side, gravity will bring it down and it will rock
> > back and forth until it settles back to the middle.
> > That's how engineers use negative feedback to bring
> > back things which have been pushed out of normal
> > operation back to normal.<**>
> > --------------------
> > Which is a demonstration of the concept of "stable"
> > equilibrium.  Turmel has failed to direct our
> > attention to the source of "negative feedback" in
> > this demonstration, however.  There is merely
> > momentum countervailed by gravity.  No feedback.
> >
> > Turmel continues to claim that he is an "engineer."
> > In response to an earlier question he said he was a
> > graduate of Carleton, I think.  Will he give me
> > permission to access his Carleton transcript and
> > student records so I might confirm his claim?
> > --
> >
> > <**>If you turn the bowl upside down and put the ball
> > at the top, one small push and the gravity will make
> > the ball fall faster and faster. That's unstable. If
> > you put the ball on a platform and give it a push,
> > without friction, it will just continue in rolling
> > steady state.<**>
> > --------------------
> > Which merely demonstrates the concept of "unstable"
> > equilibrium.  There is also no feedback in this
> > demonstration, merely the effects of gravity.
> > --
> >
> > <**>Both zero and negative feedback are acceptable
> > while positive feedback is always unacceptably
> > unstable.<**>
> > --------------------
> > Which does not follow from the two examples because
> > neither contains feedback.  Turmel arbitrarily
> > asserts, "both zero and negative are acceptable" and
> > "positive feedback is always unacceptably unstable."
> > Both assertions are complete nonsense.
> > --
> >
> > Drag on a falling object is *negative* feedback that
> > increases to the square of the object's velocity, so
> > is therefore "exponential." It will increase to the
> > point where the force from drag and the force from
> > gravity equal.  From that point downward the object
> > is falling at its "terminal" velocity which is
> > constant.  So the change to that point is
> > "exponential" but from that point downward there is
> > nothing "exponential" about it whatsoever.
> >
> > But this is negative feedback that this eminent
> > "engineer" says is "acceptable."  I wonder if he will
> > admit that it also demonstrates that negative
> > feedback can be "exponential."
> >
> > What is it about the clock escapement that feeds
> > energy into the pendulum that keeps it going with
> > each tick of the clock that makes it "always
> > unacceptably unstable"?  Will this eminent "engineer"
> > please supply an answer?  It is definitely an example
> > of positive feedback that for the first time made
> > navigation across open oceans possible.
> >
> > What is it about the triode tube that makes it
> > "always unacceptably unstable"?  There is positive
> > feedback from plate to grid which revolutionized
> > communications, making possible the ultimate
> > development of the very computers we use to scribble
> > and view these messages.
> >
> > "Edwin Howard Armstrong enrolled in electrical
> > engineering at Columbia, and in 1913, while still an
> > undergrad, made his first great discovery,
> > regeneration...Armstrong discovered that the gain of
> > a triode amplifier could be enormously increased by
> > feeding some of the amplifier output back into the
> > input, i.e. by using positive feedback. Given enough
> > feedback, the amplifier became a stable and powerful
> > oscillator, perfect for driving radio transmitters.
> > Given a little less feedback, the amplifier became a
> > more sensitive radio receiver than anything else at
> > the time."
> > --
> >
> > <**>His latest assertion is that I'm wrong when I say
> > positive feedback generates an exponential output.
> > Like I said, Ryan's certifiably irrational. I have a
> > gift for explaining super-sophisticated engineering
> > really simply.
> > --------------------
> > The gifts are the gifts of the glib and successful
> > con man.  Turmel 1) falsely claims to be an
> > "engineer," which gives him the aura of someone who
> > knows what he is talking about to whom we must defer
> > even though we don't understand what this "genius" is
> > talking about; and 2) he lies with a straight face.
> > He is indeed good at what he does.
> > --
> >
> > More to the point is the assertion that interest is
> > feedback.  It is feedback in the informational sense
> > only and derives from the conventions of accounting.
> > Interest is merely the name that we give to profit
> > going to the financier, which includes most of us
> > through pension, insurance and mutual funds.
> >
> > Profit is "positive feedback" and loss is "negative
> > feedback" because it informs us whether or not what
> > we are doing is satisfying the demands of consumers.
> > It is the very basis of the system of free
> > enterprise.
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Turmel) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > > >Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:32:52 -0500
> > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Daniel Morin)
> > > >Subject: Money, Interest and Prosperity
> > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > > JCT: Dan, this post based on your questions has really
> > > stirred up a lot of debate on the USENET groups.
> > > can.politics and alt.fan.john-turmel get it all and you can
> > > even use Google search Groups for turmel sorted on date and
> > > you'll find almost 30 articles.
> > >
> > > Most are from Dan Parker beating up on Bill Ryan. Bill's a
> > > wonderful shill to beat up on. He uses big words that are
> > > gibberish and some people take him seriously so using him as
> > > a foil is a lot of fun. Dan Parker's enjoying showing Ryan
> > > wrong as much as I did.
> > >
> > > I had 18 posts debating with Bill Ryan that I can refer you
> > > to which I've published and can be found online with a
> > > search for turmel and ryan and social credit or at the
> > > Turmel's Latest Posts page from my home page:
> > > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan1.htm
> > > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan4.htm
> > > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan6.htm
> > > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan8.htm
> > > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan10.htm
> > > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/ryan14.htm
> > >
> > > By the end, he was so badly beaten up that he became
> > > demented and has been unable to stop bad-mouthing me all
> > > these years after his drubbing.
> > >
> > > So go check the Google Groups. Step in if you'd like to make
> > > a fool of Ryan too. It's not too often you get an opponent
> > > who doesn't realize he's beaten and keeps getting up so you
> > > can keep smashing him down.
> > >
> > > His latest assertion is that I'm wrong when I say positive
> > > feedback generates an exponential output. Like I said,
> > > Ryan's certifiably irrational. I have a gift for explaining
> > > super-sophisticated engineering really simply. He's arguing
> > > I'm wrong when I can explain positive, negative and zero
> > > feedback with a ball and a bowl. See:
> > > http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/bankmath.htm and search for
> > > bowl. Once you get it, then you'll really enjoy seeing Crazy
> > > Bill baying at the moon.
> > >
> > > Again, he's fun to beat up on but only for educational
> > > purposes. Check it out.
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Turmel) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Jct: I've just noticed that Bill "Never-take-a-bet" Ryan been
> > mouthing off that I have no right to sign myself as
> > "John C. Turmel, B. Eng." and has been posting his
> > diatribe as a response to everyone of my posts on USENET.
> >
> > So be it.
> >
> > I bet $1000US to $100 if Bill Ryan will put it up that
> > Carleton University will back me up as to my graduation
> > with a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical) [B.Eng.]
> > degree.
> >
> > I'd love to say "put up or shut up" but Bill Ryan
> > never ever put up and never ever shut up.
> >
> > I won't be bothered with Mr. "Never-put-money-where-his-
> > mouth is" until he calls my raise in stakes.
> >
> > The chicken.
> > Again, visit http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/lp.htm for
> > my debates crushing him years ago which accounts for his
> > dementia now.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Turmel) wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > Bill Ryan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
> > > The Carleton designation for their degree is
> > > "Bachelor of Engineering" not "B. Eng."
> > >...
> > > Turmel has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a con
> > > man, a scammer and a clown.
> > >
> > >> So be it.
> > >> I bet $1000US to $100 if Bill Ryan will put it up that
> > >> Carleton University will back me up as to my graduation
> > >> with a Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical) [B.Eng.]
> > >> degree.
> > >>
> > >> I'd love to say "put up or shut up" but Bill Ryan
> > >> never ever put up and never ever shut up.
> > >>
> > >> I won't be bothered with Mr. "Never-put-money-where-his-
> > >> mouth is" until he calls my raise in stakes.
> > >>
> > >> The chicken.
> > >> Again, visit http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/lp.htm for
> > >> my debates crushing him years ago which accounts for his
> > >> dementia now.
> >
> > Jct: Bill Ryan's mouth won't shut up though he won't put up
> > and call my bet. I wonder why if he's so certain? I'm certain
> > enough to bet. Why isn't the mouthy coward?