Bridge Collapse

[yesman065]

He isn't a person - thats the funny part

[Uisge Beatha]

Originally Posted by tw

I have the same emotions. But I do not wear them on my sleeve.

I'll say this much for you, tw - you have a talent for understatement.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Uisge Beatha

I'll say this much for you, tw - you have a talent for understatement.

I'm sorry. But that sentence has so many interpretations that it requires me to apply a personal bias to grasp it. Please tell me what that post intended. Because of the five possible interpretations, then it currently has zero meaning.

Again, am I suppose to apply a personal bias to know what that sentance means? Apparently. Since the conclusion does not come with reasons why and since I have too much respect for people, I assume that message to be garbled in transmission. Please repost.

[tw]

Originally Posted by warch

He touts the primacy of rationale, of the value of embracing a lack of emotion, yet his post are generally spiced with affect-laden phrases like "bean counters" and ironically are highly passionate, ...

The term 'bean counter' has zero affect-laden meaning. None. In the factory, only two types of people exist: bean counters and car guys.

In England, it is called a bonnet; not a hood. Is that also emotional laden as if a car was really a woman who routinely have big holes to strap an engine in? Of course not - except where some routinely assume affect-laden meaning.

Affect-laden meaning is completely a reader’s bias. If use of ‘bean counter’ caused you to see anything other than accountant or CFO or bank officer or stock analyst or payroll clerk or mizer, then that is your bias. Meanwhile do you also get upset when someone uses the word 'colour'? That word also gets English Nazis upset. Notice another phrase with no affect-laden meaning. A simple term summarizing a general category of people.

English Nazi: those unique people with proper english training, that fanatically dictate how sentences should be structured, who edit things for syntactical correctness at the expense of technical facts or clarity, who ... and who are still not properly defined. Provided is only a ballpark description that is more than sufficient here: English Nazi

You are having a problem with my wording. Did that sentence just address everyone in the Cellar, everyone in Warch's city, or just Warch? All three because the sentence is so flagrantly ambiguous - defective - and yet syntactically correct according to English Nazis. Did you jump to an affect-laden conclusion of who *You* is? That same sentence is now syntactically corrected:
"Warch has a problem with my wording".
Exact same meaning with ambiguity removed because ambiguous first person wording was intentionally replaced with third person – for clarity - and English Nazis then take revenge. First and third person sentences should be routinely mixed in a same paragraph for perspicuity – with zero respect for English Nazis and to ‘attack’ ambiguity. Did you assume an affect-laden meaning when first and third person were mixed?

They repeatedly dictated poetic meanings in those Beatle songs. We were literally given Ds if we did not agree. Proven repeatedly even on the cover of Abbey Road: Paul was dead. So many need to observe only using personal biases. Yesman065 is a classic and repeat offender. Paul was barefoot. Therefore Paul was dead.

Warch has a problem with my wording? Or do you have a problem with my wording? Exact same meaning said twice. Did your emotions perceive two sentences differently. Then you have applied a personal bias where none should exist. But I proved Paul was dead as an Enlish Nazi insisted. Again, any affect-laden meaning is completely and 100% a reader's personal bias.

Meanwhile but another attempt to move past Yesman065's emotional tirade. What technical facts are leaking out about unbalanced loading? Unbalanced would be all traffic moved to one side of the bridge so that, for example, resurfacing could be ongoing on lanes on that other side.

The term 'structurally deficient' has massive 'affect-laden' meaning - and says near zero about bridge integrity. "Structurally deficient" bridges can be completely safe. However what is being leaked using the word 'fatigue'? Whereas the two words have same 'affect-laden' meaning; the word 'fatigue' should grasp your attention like a hammer in the skull. “Structurally deficient” is a meaningless term for this thread and for discussions about the I-35W bridge. What, using the engineering term 'fatigue', is being rumored or leaked to reporters? The word 'fatigue' is important because it has technical meaning - when all affect-laden biases are acknowledged and removed by the reader. The word 'fatigue' has a serious technical meaning for a school bus that is far more important - all other ones.

[warch]

Personally, I like people worrying about the school bus, and school buses in general throughout the time space continuum. If they react with concern at all, I'll take it.

[BrianR]

Personally, I neither like nor dislike tw. It's just that he has now posted twice about this topic and has not ONCE blamed the President.

Who'd a thunk it?

[tw]

Originally Posted by BrianR

It's just that he has now posted twice about this topic and has not ONCE blamed the President.

Incompetence only goes so far.

Meanwhile, George Jr must go visit - as if he will see or do something useful. If they gave him a shovel, maybe that $quarter-million trip might result in something useful – such as pictures.

[xoxoxoBruce]

This is what Warch was describing.

the entire north and southbound 35 W bridge collapsed.
The standing bridge is older, not identical in that is not a single steel span. It is a four lane "top" street bridge, not a highway. It is at relatively the same height above the river as 35 used to be.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Incompetence only goes so far.

Meanwhile, George Jr must go visit - as if he will see or do something useful. If they gave him a shovel, maybe that $quarter-million trip might result in something useful – such as pictures.

Well, you don't think that 5 million, plus follow-on, comes with out a photo-op do you. After all, were talking Minnesota, not Louisiana, here.

[Ibby]

theeeere's the tw I know and fail to love.

Good to have you back, bushbasher numero uno

[Uisge Beatha]

Originally Posted by tw

Please repost.

OK

Originally Posted by tw

I have the same emotions. But I do not wear them on my sleeve.

I'll say this much for you, tw - you have a talent for understatement.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Uisge Beatha

I'll say this much for you, tw - you have a talent for understatement.

You knew exactly what I was asking. Since I have not a clue what you are posting, I will assume it is a bad joke. Ha, Ha. No belly laugh.

[yesman065]

I was sad that people died. that is all - it was a time for mourning the loss of life - humans died don't you get that tw? I am aware of the aging infrastructure of our country. I am aware that something could have and possibly should have been done long ago - THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

Discussing the hows and whys weren't appropriate. Having human feelings is normal and expressing them here is what I do. I post to express my feelings because I have them. You may feel the need to point fingers and assess blame - well good for you. Don't criticize me because, in this case, I'm sad that people died. If that is your goal or aim or need why don't you start looking into how unsafe every skyscraper built 50 years ago is or take on the failing roadways or a multitude of other issues where tragedies have not yet happened instead of taking backhanded, thinly veiled pot shots at me and my emotions and then claiming they weren't there.

[tw]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Discussing the hows and whys weren't appropriate. Having human feelings is normal and expressing them here is what I do. I post to express my feelings because I have them. You may feel the need to point fingers and assess blame - well good for you. Don't criticize me because, in this case, I'm sad that people died.

Demonstrated again is exactly the point made repeatedly in previous posts. Yesman065 was criticized zero times in that first post. However Yesman065 took offense anyway - assumed criticism that clearly and obviously did not exist.

Point One: show me, Yesman065, a quote where you were criticized? You cannot. That post simply compared and contrasted a difference in how we view things. What that post did was blantantly and logically obvious - zero insults. Your above quote says grasping reality should occur later after appropriate grief is expressed. First take stock of emotions. Fine. And that is what my post said - a logical comparison how two people see the same thing.

But Yesman065 continued with his emotions Point two: somehow you expanded your emotion into rationalizing a personal attack. That is bull - a complete lie. Now Yesman065 used emotions to also lie and to attack tw. Not only did you invent a mythical insult, but you used that mythical insult to attack another. Point two says 'shame on Yesman065'.

Yesman065 has no interest in 'hows or whys' - as he clearly states. He even charactertizes a grasp of reality as "weren't appropriate". Fine. And so the most accurate post compared and contrasted how two people grasp events; one with emotion and the other more concerned with human life - such as all other school busses in the country. But then Yesman065 followed that with a meltdown; further entertained his emotons as to even invent mythical insults.

Meanwhile, the very first thing one does during such events is ask 'how and why'. Time for emotions comes long after all events have been grasped.

What happened when a boat with 125 gallons of gasoline has a fire? Fortunately, no one entertained their emotions. Everyone logically grasped and then performed a task - each without instruction - which is why we all lived and the boat was saved. In silly movies where people are screaming - those people wasting time and putting both themselves and others at risk by entertaining their emotions.

Compared and contrasted - first - was how two people view a same event. Then - second - compared and contrasted is how one is so emotional as to invent insults and then attack others - due to something that exists only in his head. Same mythical insults are common in the self centered heads of a typical Valley Girl. One more concerned with her own emotions rather than with responsiblity to others. Yesman065 is accused of inventing insults where none existed - except in his head.

[Aliantha]

What I want to know is who is Valley Girl?