|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 26, 2011, 1:49 AM
Post #176 of 252
(6198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
TarHeelEMT wrote: jt512 wrote: bearbreeder wrote: rescueman wrote: If there is any slippage of rope through the belayer's hand or through the device, or the belayer's body moves with the force, then the belay is dynamic. A static belay involves no slippage or movement. Here's some more "fuzzy" math: According to a test report by Stephen Attaway, PhD and J. Marc Beverly, "the maximum credible event for belay loads for new ropes…would be 9 kN for devices limited to fall factors of less than one (single pitch or top rope)." That's at the belay device. At the top rope change of direction, the force would be approximately 1.67 times that. http://www.caves.org/...ng_Em_High_Final.pdfthere is utterly no way you are seeing 9 kn at the belay device in a real world top rope situation with dynamic rope that i know off ... you would have to be climbing above the anchor ... and not just 1-2 feet above it or the belayer would need to be using a static rope and not paying attention with slack buildup at all ... since the OP i dont think is using static rope ... But top ropes are commonly set up with static ropes, and some belayers don't pay attention and do let slack build up. But, you're wrong regardless. Even with a dynamic rope, if the belay is static, the force on a top rope anchor could conceivably exceed 9 kN: [img]http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/tr-impact.png[/img] Source: http://jt512.dyndns.org/impactcalc Jay At issue was 9kN at the belay device.
At the belay device? On top rope? 9 kN? I suppose that with a static rope, static belay, slack in the rope, and a very heavy climber, you could create that force at the belay, but it would be beyond the "credible lifetime" impact force, as defined by Beverly and Attaway. With a dynamic rope, it's essentially inconceivable.
Rescueman, you are misinterpreting the paper. As others have said, you're taking a result derived from "data" on fall factors not exceeding 1 and applying it to the least severe of those falls.
And, thank god, science is not done the way "multi-variant" statistics (a more accurate term than I suspect you realize) were done in that paper. Survey of climbers asking them what the highest fall-factor fall they think they've ever taken? Oy.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
Aug 26, 2011, 2:38 AM
Post #177 of 252
(6184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
jt512 wrote: Rescueman, you are misinterpreting the paper. As others have said, you're taking a result derived from "data" on fall factors not exceeding 1 and applying it to the least severe of those falls.
I've repeatedly stated my own maximum credible estimate of 5 kN for the anchor load in a top rope scenario. Thank you for posting calculations indicating that my estimate was low.
In reply to: And, thank god, science is not done the way "multi-variant" statistics (a more accurate term than I suspect you realize) were done in that paper. Survey of climbers asking them what the highest fall-factor fall they think they've ever taken?
You mean physical science. The social sciences most assuredly rely on survey data, and climbing behavior is a social science.
Polling is a science, relying on strict mathematical criteria to determine the degree of validity. Galllup uses national sample sizes of only 1,000. Attaway's sample of 350 climbers should be at least as accurate.
(This post was edited by rescueman on Aug 26, 2011, 2:40 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 26, 2011, 3:16 AM
Post #178 of 252
(6171 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
rescueman wrote: jt512 wrote: Rescueman, you are misinterpreting the paper. As others have said, you're taking a result derived from "data" on fall factors not exceeding 1 and applying it to the least severe of those falls. I've misrepresented nothing. There's precious little hard data on top-rope impact forces, so I quoted one study which investigated impact forces on falls that include top rope falls. I've repeatedly stated my own maximum credible estimate of 5 kN for the anchor load in a top rope scenario. Thank you for posting calculations indicating that my estimate was low. In reply to: And, thank god, science is not done the way "multi-variant" statistics (a more accurate term than I suspect you realize) were done in that paper. Survey of climbers asking them what the highest fall-factor fall they think they've ever taken? You mean physical science. The social sciences most assuredly rely on survey data, and climbing behavior is a social science.
I was going to parenthetically add "unless by 'science' you mean social 'science,'" but I resisted the temptation to introduce a second punchline into a single sarcastic statement. That said, social sciences (as well as epidemiology) certainly do rely on questionnaires, but good social science (as well as good epidemiology) uses questionnaires whose validity and reliability have been ascertained. They don't ask questions like, "What's the highest fall-factor fall you think you've ever taken?" unless they have determined the reliability and accuracy of those questions. Beverly and Attaway based a whole paper on the answer to a question whose validity is doubtful on its face and which they give no indication that they made any attempt to validate. This renders their results little more than speculation (and arguably worse than expert judgement).
In reply to: Polling is a science, relying on strict mathematical criteria to determine the degree of validity. Galllup uses national sample sizes of only 1,000.
I'm fully aware of that.
In reply to: Attaway's sample of 350 climbers should be at least as accurate.
No, that's false for more reasons than I have time to write about, but briefly: First of all, if you mean "precision," then you've made a statistical contradiction, since the precision of a typical statistic is proportional to the square root of the sample size and, for all intents and purposes, is independent of the size of the population. But precision is also dependent of the ability of respondents' to correctly answer the question. On its face, a question about the maximum fall factor a climber has ever experienced is not one that the average climber could answer reliably. In a well-designed study, the validity of such a question would have been assessed and reported.
Accuracy is another matter. When Gallup does a national poll, they begin with a representative sample of the population, so their polling results reflect relatively well the the answers that the entire population would give (that is, they are relatively accurate). But there is no indication in the paper how Beverly selected his 350 climbers. We have no reason to believe (and good reasons not to believe) that these climbers were representative of the whole climbing population (of the world). They almost certainly used some sort of convenience sample, about which they give no details, and therefore about which we can have no confidence in its representativeness.
I'd like to be able to say that this paper would be unpublishable in a peer-review journal. Unfortunately, there are journals with such low standards, that it could probably be published somewhere.
Jay
(This post was edited by jt512 on Aug 26, 2011, 4:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
Aug 26, 2011, 4:07 AM
Post #179 of 252
(6150 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
jt512 wrote: social sciences (as well as epidemiology) certainly do rely on questionnaires, but good social science (as well as good epidemiology) uses questionnaires whose validity and reliability have been ascertained.
If you really want to argue with Attaway's methodology, then contact him. You, and everyone else here, are making assumptions and suppositions which are, almost certainly, more suspect than any statistical sampling errors or conclusions of Attaway.
But your statement above is absurd on the face of it. There's no way to determine the reliability of a survey instrument until its used (and the significance of its resulting data evaluated and compared with similar findings. (My father taught graduate level research methods and statistics for many years after conducting NIMH research at Harvard and NYU, and I worked with him as as data analyst on one occasion. As one of the founders of the field of Social Psychology, he relied heavily on well-designed subjective surveys).
And you, like everyone else here so critical of Attaway, ignore his multiple disclaimers, such as the one for this survey: "We acknowledge that such a survey could be prone to errors due to the natural tendency for most falls to become greater with each recounting. What may be interesting is the low number of factor 2 falls reported."
In fact, the bar graph distribution indicates nothing suspicious at all. It's a bell curve skewed heavily to the low end of fall factors. If it were contaminated with a lot of exaggeration, it would be skewed in the other direction.
But this whole critique of Attaway is nothing but a diversion from the core of this thread. The point is that there's enough credible evidence (including your force calculator, if it's based on accurate formulae), that top-rope forces can be higher than most people imagine and it behooves us to set up bomber anchors rather than play the odds against safety.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Aug 26, 2011, 4:35 AM
Post #180 of 252
(6143 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
jt512 wrote: I'd like to be able to say that this paper would be unpublishable in a peer-review journal. Unfortunately, there are journals with such low standards, that it could probably be published somewhere.
Not to mention there are several places where it uses rather imprecise language, which is why Mr. 9knAtTheBelay here was confused and didn't quite understand it. Overall it's just not a very impressive work. If we wanted to establish strength standard for belay devices we could have just as well used your fall force calculator.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Aug 26, 2011, 4:48 AM
Post #181 of 252
(6140 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
rescueman wrote: The point is that there's enough credible evidence (including your force calculator, if it's based on accurate formulae), that top-rope forces can be higher than most people imagine and it behooves us to set up bomber anchors rather than play the odds against safety.
Nobody in this entire thread is arguing against that, you pedantic blowhard. The AMGA rig that is the subject of this debate meets the standard of being bomber - easily.
You tried to use the 9kn at the belay argument to question it's safety. And you stuck to that argument for pages until multiple people explained how that is ludicrous and pointed out that the report made no such claims for that load in a top-rope fall, and that was finally able seep through your thick ego and find some scrap of grey matter to sink into.
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
Aug 26, 2011, 4:56 AM
Post #182 of 252
(6136 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
hugepedro wrote: Overall it's just not a very impressive work. If we wanted to establish strength standard for belay devices we could have just as well used your fall force calculator.
Ah, so...
Now the sharp end guy, who so freely trashes one of the few attempts at a substantiated research approach to evaluating the required strength of belay devices, is willing to accept the validity of an on-line calculator which reveals nothing about the formulae it uses to compute forces (and which could well be a random number generator).
I think you need to get out your pencil sharpener and sharpen up your arguments. You're contradicting yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
rescueman
Aug 26, 2011, 4:59 AM
Post #183 of 252
(6134 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2004
Posts: 439
|
hugepedro wrote: The AMGA rig that is the subject of this debate meets the standard of being bomber - easily.
Apparently you've forgotten that the subject of this thread was the use of 6 mm cord for top rope anchors. There's nothing "bomber" about that, and even the OP has come around to that conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 26, 2011, 5:01 AM
Post #184 of 252
(6131 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
rescueman wrote: jt512 wrote: social sciences (as well as epidemiology) certainly do rely on questionnaires, but good social science (as well as good epidemiology) uses questionnaires whose validity and reliability have been ascertained. If you really want to argue with Attaway's methodology, then contact him.
No. I'm arguing with you, since you are basing your argument on a deeply flawed paper.
In reply to: You, and everyone else here, are making assumptions and suppositions which are, almost certainly, more suspect than any statistical sampling errors or conclusions of Attaway.
Oh, really? Easy claim to make if you don't actually cite any supporting evidence. Care to explain where and how I've made more suspect assumption than "any statistical sampling errors or conclusions" that the authors made?
In reply to: But your statement above is absurd on the face of it. There's no way to determine the reliability of a survey instrument until its used (and the significance of its resulting data evaluated and compared with similar findings. (My father taught graduate level research methods and statistics for many years after conducting NIMH research at Harvard and NYU, and I worked with him as as data analyst on one occasion. As one of the founders of the field of Social Psychology, he relied heavily on well-designed subjective surveys).
Unfortunately, it appears you inherited your mother's genes. Your ability to trot out appeals to irrelevant authorities appears to be exceeded only by your ignorance of statistics in general and its sub-discipline, reliability and validity estimation.
In reply to: And you, like everyone else here so critical of Attaway, ignore his multiple disclaimers, such as the one for this survey: "We acknowledge that such a survey could be prone to errors due to the natural tendency for most falls to become greater with each recounting. What may be interesting is the low number of factor 2 falls reported."
As I've already explained, their survey is erroneous due to far more serious problems than the authors acknowledge.
In reply to: In fact, the bar graph distribution indicates nothing suspicious at all. It's a bell curve skewed heavily to the low end of fall factors. If it were contaminated with a lot of exaggeration, it would be skewed in the other direction.
. . . and if it were contaminated with a lot of under-estimation it would be skewed in the other direction, and if it weren't representative of the climbing population then it would be, um, um, um?
In reply to: But this whole critique of Attaway is nothing but a diversion from the core of this thread. The point is that there's enough credible evidence (including your force calculator, if it's based on accurate formulae), that top-rope forces can be higher than most people imagine and it behooves us to set up bomber anchors rather than play the odds against safety.
You're the one who brought up this paper (and if you're going to cite a single author, it should be the first author, Beverly) to support your contention. So, yeah, we're criticizing your evidence for your contention.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Aug 26, 2011, 5:09 AM
Post #185 of 252
(6127 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
rescueman wrote: hugepedro wrote: Overall it's just not a very impressive work. If we wanted to establish strength standard for belay devices we could have just as well used your fall force calculator. Ah, so... Now the sharp end guy, who so freely trashes one of the few attempts at a substantiated research approach to evaluating the required strength of belay devices, is willing to accept the validity of an on-line calculator which reveals nothing about the formulae it uses to compute forces (and which could well be a random number generator). I think you need to get out your pencil sharpener and sharpen up your arguments. You're contradicting yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Aug 26, 2011, 5:13 AM
Post #186 of 252
(6123 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
TarHeelEMT wrote: jt512 wrote: bearbreeder wrote: rescueman wrote: If there is any slippage of rope through the belayer's hand or through the device, or the belayer's body moves with the force, then the belay is dynamic. A static belay involves no slippage or movement. Here's some more "fuzzy" math: According to a test report by Stephen Attaway, PhD and J. Marc Beverly, "the maximum credible event for belay loads for new ropes…would be 9 kN for devices limited to fall factors of less than one (single pitch or top rope)." That's at the belay device. At the top rope change of direction, the force would be approximately 1.67 times that. http://www.caves.org/...ng_Em_High_Final.pdfthere is utterly no way you are seeing 9 kn at the belay device in a real world top rope situation with dynamic rope that i know off ... you would have to be climbing above the anchor ... and not just 1-2 feet above it or the belayer would need to be using a static rope and not paying attention with slack buildup at all ... since the OP i dont think is using static rope ... But top ropes are commonly set up with static ropes, and some belayers don't pay attention and do let slack build up. But, you're wrong regardless. Even with a dynamic rope, if the belay is static, the force on a top rope anchor could conceivably exceed 9 kN: [img]http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/tr-impact.png[/img] Source: http://jt512.dyndns.org/impactcalc Jay At issue was 9kN at the belay device.
Jay just wanted to show off his fancy schmancy fall force calculator.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Aug 26, 2011, 5:19 AM
Post #187 of 252
(6121 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
rescueman wrote: hugepedro wrote: Overall it's just not a very impressive work. If we wanted to establish strength standard for belay devices we could have just as well used your fall force calculator. Ah, so... Now the sharp end guy, who so freely trashes one of the few attempts at a substantiated research approach to evaluating the required strength of belay devices, is willing to accept the validity of an on-line calculator which reveals nothing about the formulae it uses to compute forces (and which could well be a random number generator). I think you need to get out your pencil sharpener and sharpen up your arguments. You're contradicting yourself.
Wrong, genius. The formulas are right there in his footnotes. Click on the little "1" and "2" clicky linky things and read them for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
mbrd
Aug 26, 2011, 5:33 AM
Post #188 of 252
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2011
Posts: 67
|
rescueman wrote: Apparently you've forgotten that the subject of this thread was the use of 6 mm cord for top rope anchors. There's nothing "bomber" about that, and even the OP has come around to that conclusion.
okay, wait- is that true? i was going to say something about my maybe not having emphatically enough chimed in on the "bag the six mil" bandwagon, but if the op has taken the "stout road", then all should be well (as long as everything else is in order- eeesh).
i'm way not going to paddle through the muck of this thread to find the op's capitulation (assuming you are correct that such has occurred). this is like some fucked up wikitakeyourchancespedia entry, with all of the obsolete information still intact.
you know- six mill might be small enough that one could incorporate a 9/16" tubular web jacket into the knots and have it contribute to load bearing. i'm not going to experiment with it in the field, but if i find the time i might talk to some friends who have access to machines that break things.
in the mean time- and i wish to emphatically state- use the six mil to short string rigid stem friends for horizontals (the lightening holes take six, don't they?), or sling old hexes, or make prussiks so you don't have to do the roger moore shoelace prussik thing (a buddy of mine actually did this once- i railed on him for it, and he countered that it got us off the climb and to the cooler faster than the lower off and rappels on a two pitch climb; he also just wanted to see if it could be done).
maybe it's time to start rating shoelaces- and arguing about it....
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Aug 26, 2011, 5:35 AM
Post #189 of 252
(6105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
rescueman wrote: hugepedro wrote: The AMGA rig that is the subject of this debate meets the standard of being bomber - easily. Apparently you've forgotten that the subject of this thread was the use of 6 mm cord for top rope anchors. There's nothing "bomber" about that, and even the OP has come around to that conclusion.
Dude??? Nobody said 6mm cord was okay. This debate was about the biners being compromised. Where have you been, man?
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Aug 26, 2011, 5:41 AM
Post #190 of 252
(6100 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
mbrd wrote: rescueman wrote: Apparently you've forgotten that the subject of this thread was the use of 6 mm cord for top rope anchors. There's nothing "bomber" about that, and even the OP has come around to that conclusion. okay, wait- is that true?
No, it's not. Beefier material was recommended long ago, and the OP went out and bought some. The debate was about whether the AMGA configuration would compromise the biners with triaxial loading.
|
|
|
|
|
mbrd
Aug 26, 2011, 6:12 AM
Post #191 of 252
(6095 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2011
Posts: 67
|
by the way, your thread is rapidly closing on two hundred posts, most of which have turned into some bizarre sub-engineering fest of pre failure analysis. the only people that could be more confused by/fuck this up more, would be actual engineers.
if you are even still paying attention to the mess you started (just know, we all blame you, because we are too busy trashing one another to find another target), perhaps you should tell all of us to get off of your lawn.
if you are the smartest one of the bunch, you will have bagged the thread, reassigned your six mil, and have moved on.
we're a bunch of chuckleheads that exist day to day in the whirlwind of "working load limits" and "design factors", and then traverse a never ending ribbon of formulae, and respective redundancy, in an effort to achieve a theoretical level of scrutiny and safety that we will summarily dismiss onsite in the pursuit of efficacy.
get it?
just hump the eleven mil. rope weight (tr anchor weight) is a pretty small component in your kit. the longevity of the material will more than make up for the initial expense. the comfort of confidence in your tackle will free your psyche to do all that crazy toprope shit you have dreamt, and you will have no doubt regarding the solidity of your anchors.
well, no doubt regarding the soundness of your line.
you should start another thread with questions about placements or knots (or the validity of handrails as toprope anchors).
c'mon man- stir up some shit....
|
|
|
|
|
mbrd
Aug 26, 2011, 6:45 AM
Post #192 of 252
(6086 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2011
Posts: 67
|
hugepedro wrote: No, it's not. Beefier material was recommended long ago, and the OP went out and bought some. The debate was about whether the AMGA configuration would compromise the biners with triaxial loading.
i'm sorry, i was not clear- in that phrase i was just asking if it was true that the op had decided to go fatter on the stock.
setting all of the other shit aside, going nine to eleven makes the most sense, and i was concerned that i might somehow have contributed to the op sticking with six, because i was trying to emphasize, "well if that is what you are going to use" provisions.
the "truth" i referred to was not any "truth" in our multifarious arguments; i was asking if the op had seen some light and gone with more stout line.
|
|
|
|
|
mbrd
Aug 26, 2011, 6:50 AM
Post #193 of 252
(6081 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2011
Posts: 67
|
well, all of that shit aside, thank fucking goodness this is a constructive forum.
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Aug 26, 2011, 6:53 AM
Post #194 of 252
(6075 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
Ooohh, I misread your meaning.
rc.com? Constructive? What are you smokin, man?
|
|
|
|
|
mbrd
Aug 26, 2011, 6:56 AM
Post #195 of 252
(6069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2011
Posts: 67
|
i'm not smoking anything- i am drinking a lot, and i think the fumes must be coming coming from the basement. i feel smarter, but i am pretty sure that i am not.
|
|
|
|
|
mbrd
Aug 26, 2011, 6:58 AM
Post #196 of 252
(6067 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2011
Posts: 67
|
wait, i am going into the basement, i will report back if ilyf6;gu'fhi
pJO{PMdgn
;,?Z
|
|
|
|
|
hugepedro
Aug 26, 2011, 7:04 AM
Post #197 of 252
(6062 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
mbrd wrote: i feel smarter, but i am pretty sure that i am not.
Definitely brain cells lost in this thread, and with none of the benefit that usually comes with losing them.
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Aug 26, 2011, 1:02 PM
Post #198 of 252
(6049 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
rescueman wrote: But your statement above is absurd on the face of it. There's no way to determine the reliability of a survey instrument until its used (and the significance of its resulting data evaluated and compared with similar findings.
You are right about this, more or less. But the authors did not compare their results with established metrics, nor did they report alternative metrics from their survey. For example, they could have asked the same question in several different ways ("Thinking now about falls you have taken close to the belay - less than 10 feet out - what is the longest such fall you have taken.") or asked about the last fall taken.
In reply to: (My father taught graduate level research methods and statistics for many years after conducting NIMH research at Harvard and NYU, and I worked with him as as data analyst on one occasion. As one of the founders of the field of Social Psychology, he relied heavily on well-designed subjective surveys).
Ooooooohhhhh, and he drops the H bomb!
Sorry, but I don't generally defer to Harvard men on matters quantitative. Perhaps I am predisposed toward another school in Cambridge.
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Aug 26, 2011, 2:14 PM
Post #199 of 252
(6029 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
scrapedape wrote: rescueman wrote: But your statement above is absurd on the face of it. There's no way to determine the reliability of a survey instrument until its used (and the significance of its resulting data evaluated and compared with similar findings. You are right about this, more or less. But the authors did not compare their results with established metrics, nor did they report alternative metrics from their survey. For example, they could have asked the same question in several different ways ("Thinking now about falls you have taken close to the belay - less than 10 feet out - what is the longest such fall you have taken.") or asked about the last fall taken.
Not only was the question about fall factor not validated, it was pointless in the first place (as was the survey itself). We know what the highest fall factor is that a belay device has to withstand. It's 2. Done.
In reply to: In reply to: (My father taught graduate level research methods and statistics for many years after conducting NIMH research at Harvard and NYU, and I worked with him as as data analyst on one occasion. As one of the founders of the field of Social Psychology, he relied heavily on well-designed subjective surveys). Ooooooohhhhh, and he drops the H bomb! Sorry, but I don't generally defer to Harvard men on matters quantitative. Perhaps I am predisposed toward another school in Cambridge.
@rescueman: Since you're a fan of Harvard, you might be interested in this.
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dan2see
Aug 26, 2011, 2:29 PM
Post #200 of 252
(6024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2006
Posts: 1497
|
hugepedro wrote: mbrd wrote: rescueman wrote: Apparently you've forgotten that the subject of this thread was the use of 6 mm cord for top rope anchors. There's nothing "bomber" about that, and even the OP has come around to that conclusion. okay, wait- is that true? No, it's not. Beefier material was recommended long ago, and the OP went out and bought some. The debate was about whether the AMGA configuration would compromise the biners with triaxial loading.
Yikes! I missed that!
It's Post #125
on 23 Aug 2011 (3 days ago)
on page 5 of this thread.
With pictures!
This thread is a travesty of threads. I've been reading online about "argument" and "conflict" but I found nothing that specifically mentions "polite contempt".
Also, is there a word for when somebody shows how he's right, as opposed to discussing the facts?
(This post was edited by dan2see on Aug 26, 2011, 2:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
