Korean War- Retreat From Hell

[gpit]

..., Hooters girls...........

...[/IMG]

Excuse my ignorance, are they prostitutes or otherwise sex workers?

If so, is that legal?

 

[Firemaster]

A Hooters Girl is a waitress employed by the Hooters restaurant chain. The girls are recognizable by their uniform of a white tank top with the "Hootie the Owl" logo and the location name on the front paired with short nylon orange runner's shorts.
Hooters - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gambit]

See your logical fallacy?

It is me who first asked you why it needs 10 lambdas as criteria and you said ask your Chinese writers of the article. Then you asked me to tell you why.

There is no logical fallacy. The fallacy is imaginary. You asserted that the 10-lambda rule ITSELF defy Born Approximation. If that is true, then the rule itself, meaning the wavelength/diameter ratio, is made up -- by me. The 10-lambda rule is foundational in scattering field modeling and prediction of complex bodies. For any radar system, there is no way for the system to know if it is going to be in contact with a plate, a cube, a sphere, or a cylinder. Or in our case with an aircraft -- a complex body that contains multiples of these shapes in varying sizes.

But this is interesting: It is me who first asked you why it needs 10 lambdas as criteria...

The 10-lambda rule is not a 'criteria' for measurement. It is a behavior that may or may not occur. The 10-lambda rule is an explanation of what behaviors would occur based upon certain body shape. The seeking radar does not know whether there is a diameter that may or may not be greater than its transmitting wavelength.

So if you tacitly accused me of making up such a rule, then show everyone at least a couple sources that say the wavelength/diameter ratio does not exist or is somehow not needed. You can even show a Chinese source if you like. I did above to support my arguments that the rule exist.

You need to get out of your pre-high school level of logical reasoning. Serious.

You claimed to be an academic. Since you ran away so often when busted, I dare say that you are at best a low level professor at some Podunk community college where the local plumber make more money than you do.

Dude, listen carefully, I am not your type of racist. When talking about science, I care nothing about race or nationality or religious background of the authors. What I care is how and why according to our present knowledge base.

Of course you do care. That is why you kept silent throughout your fellow Chinese's genuine logical fallacies and monumental technical blunders.

 

[gpit]

There is no logical fallacy. The fallacy is imaginary. You asserted that the 10-lambda rule ITSELF defy Born Approximation. If that is true, then the rule itself, meaning the wavelength/diameter ratio, is made up -- by me. The 10-lambda rule is foundational in scattering field modeling and prediction of complex bodies. For any radar system, there is no way for the system to know if it is going to be in contact with a plate, a cube, a sphere, or a cylinder. Or in our case with an aircraft -- a complex body that contains multiples of these shapes in varying sizes.

But this is interesting: It is me who first asked you why it needs 10 lambdas as criteria...

The 10-lambda rule is not a 'criteria' for measurement. It is a behavior that may or may not occur. The 10-lambda rule is an explanation of what behaviors would occur based upon certain body shape. The seeking radar does not know whether there is a diameter that may or may not be greater than its transmitting wavelength.

So if you tacitly accused me of making up such a rule, then show everyone at least a couple sources that say the wavelength/diameter ratio does not exist or is somehow not needed. You can even show a Chinese source if you like. I did above to support my arguments that the rule exist.


You claimed to be an academic. Since you ran away so often when busted, I dare say that you are at best a low level professor at some Podunk community college where the local plumber make more money than you do.


Of course you do care. That is why you kept silent throughout your fellow Chinese's genuine logical fallacies and monumental technical blunders.

LOL!

Why don't you find the original posts and let's begin with that.

I know for a reason why the authors claim 10 lambdas. I asked you why not 7 or 5 lambdas.

Rest assured that I'm not a world police, neither do I have the time to quench all Chinese dissidents.

On the other side, why did you emphasize the racial background of the authors that are no interest to me and irrelavent to the topic? The only explannation is a deep rasist and slavery thinking in your brain that is against all Asians. Didn't you say the world should be ruled by one superpower in your post?

 

[gambit]

LOL!

Why don't you find the original posts and let's begin with that.

I know for a reason why the authors claim 10 lambdas. I asked you why not 7 or 5 lambdas.

Rest assured that I'm not a world police, neither do I have the time to quench all Chinese dissidents.

On the other side, why did you emphasize the racial background of the authors that are no interest to me? The only explannation is a deep rasist and slavery thinking in your brain that is against all Asians. Didn't you say the world should be ruled by one superpower?

Your words were that the 10-lambda rule 'defy Born Approximation'. You repeatedly ran away from it ever since. If you have any shred of intellectual honesty and if you are the physics (or whatever science) professor that you claimed to be and have genuine knowledge of the matter, you would not need to ask that I bring in the original post. You should be able to 'man up' to own your arguments.