Well I've already responded in some detail but let that aspect pass for now. How good is your memory
gamolon?
Because gerrycan has posted yet another bit of lie by innuendo nonsense and personal attack which goes back to something you started gamolon on another forum about 6 years back. This is the pair of lies by half truth:
Does it ring little bells Gamolon? My memory was good enough to know that Gerrycan is telling fibs. The reality is that enik issued a challenge apparently arising out of a more complicated challenge YOU posted on JREF - March 2013 so it was still JREF.
Wait - let me go search ISF. Done - this is the link to the JREF (now ISF) thread:
Challenge: Demonstrate Sagging floor Trusses Pulling in Perimeter Columns - International Skeptics Forum
You, Gamolon, may find it amusing to reminisce. You will find I raised some simple points but ended up caught in the middle of a multi way mix of misunderstandings and errors plus some outright dishonesties. And about basic processes of analysis. So very much like recent days on this thread EXCEPT that here Gerrycan is the only one deliberately being untruthful and trying to trap me into playing his game. Over there it was the usual heated bigotry of JREF against enik the truthers - who didn't hesitate to give as good as he got..
I won't dig into the details. BUT Gerrycan's claim is FALSE on these points - in order of importance:
1) "Like you did when Enik showed you..." <<Enik did not "show me" nor did his debunker side opponent. BOTH of them went off the rails on one fundamental aspect of engineering analysis subject of the challenge. That was "perimeter inward bowing" - the same topic as recent discussions here. Then subsequently they and others went many times into erroneous arguments. I steadfastly kept bringing them and a number of other members back onto the point.
2) "...You are the one claiming to have done it" << Which is ambiguous. What I did was correct an error of argument process - EXACTLY as I have done in recent days on this thread with Gerrycan's misdirected process. I did NOT "..[do] it" as Gerrycan falsely alleges meaning "do the calculations" - both the protagonists had shifted the goalposts making their engineering analysis invalid. Exactly the same point I've made here several times. The analysis PROCESS is faulty and it is a waste of effort putting numbers to a falsely defined model or an inappropriate process.
The irony of Gerrycan claiming Enik "showed me" is that Enik and I resolved our difference of opinion - in my favour. And as I reported in that referenced thread when I said
..the debunker protagonist never did accept that he was wrong.
That's SOP. "Debunkers" who are practising engineers and at/beyond their "glass ceiling" of limited competence are a lot harder to educate than truthers.
So - several other members seem content to play along with Gerrycan's games. He doesn't want to learn so I'll probably limit my comments unless any members show interest. OR if Gerrycan really does want to pursue his false claim that "enik showed me". We will soon see who "showed who" :doh :lol: