Re: Scientist Says Concrete Was Used in Pyramids

In sci.archaeology message news:1hpsdyb.1sy5m8i1koyp31N%
firstname@xxxxxxxxxxxx by firstname@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Florian) . . . :

prd <X_header@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No it doesn't, not at least in meaningful time frames. Limestone
are degraded over time by soil acids and acidic rainfall. Very slowly.

The only thing you are doing here is throwing out whimsical brain-farts
when ever your ideas are confronted with valid critiques.

As you know, there are different kind of limestones. The one we are
talking about is loosely bound and easily disaggregate.

Watch the movie?

I also am not going to watch the 'passion of the christ', either nor any
number of movies recommended by idealistic pundits. I go to movies to be
entertained, not educated, for education you better to read the
peer-reviewed primary literture.
Otherwise you would tend yourself to Mel Gibson like faiths in
life, living someone elses problems.

I suppose this is much easier to carry concrete in bags than carrying 2
tons blocks.

They would have carried it in trays, when water was added, mixed and the
with two men dumped into a form, the trays carried back and reloaded.

The reason the concrete is used is to provide a load-bearing
structures which generally do not rely on gravity by itself to
hold the correct position (or alternative need to endure forces
much greater than gravity, such as an 18 wheeler traversing
a stretch of freeway). [...]

I don't think the benefits of using concrete in pyramid building would
be about material strenght but about the ease of use (carrying).

Why blocks, consider slicing a piece of wood, say a tree, consider the
waste involved. Let's idealize the problem, a stock of tree is 100 M tall
and 1 meter square. therefore it is 100 cubic meter in area or 100,000,000
cm. Now suppose each time I cut the tree my saw takes out 1 cm. I need 100
pieces in that tree. Let us suppose that I cut across the tree 100 times
for my resulting blocks are 1M sq x 99cm or 0.99M^3 per block, I have
wasted 1%, actually 0.99% since I only needed 99 cuts for 100 pieces.

Now let us suppose I would cut the piece 100 longways each cut (99) takes 1
cm. By the time I have finished I have consumed 99% of the tree leaving
1% in 100 cuts or 0.01% per cut ~ 0.1 mm x 1 meter wide x 100 meter long.
basically, if the slabs were stable I could fly them to the pyramid, which
might be very entertaining to me fellow worker, however the forman at the
site is scrowling at all the wasted.

Translation: when cutting to preserve bulk, cut to produce cubes generally
result in the least waste when, as part of the cutting process, the saw
waste material.

Let us just argue that there is a mountain, a virtually unlimited amount of
limestone, just incredibly close to the jobsite, so close that use of
optimal limestone does not appreciably disable further transportation
efficacy.

Each amount of cut, doesn't mater the direction result in the conversion
of energy (Millet + beef + beer + O2 ----> CO2 + feces + urine). Also each
cut removes a certain amount of Cu and Ni from the bronze saw.
Therefore Cu2+/Ni+ + Energy ------> Bronze + Energy ----> Saw.

Therefore a cut that generates a block from three basic cuts 1 meter, 1
meter and l meter has cut through essentially 30,000 cm. For this analogy
let us assume we are filling a 10 x 10 meter pyramid. Each block is 1
meter. For the first layer I need 100 blocks, right? Each block has 30,000
cm^2 of cut as a measure of energy, right? So that for my pyramid level of
1 meter I need 100 x 30,000 cm of cut or 3,000,000 cm of cut energy.

Now suppose I do the same thing in 1 cm layers, very easy to haul since
each of 1000 guys can carry the slab right over his head and they can
simply tilt it in place. 1 cm thick x 10,000 cm/square meter x 100 =
1,000,000 square cm x 1.8 gram/ cm = 1,800,000 grams per layer.
divid by 100 individuals = 18 kg per individual. No problem, you just carry
that slab and tilt it and lye it down and you have a perfectly triangular
sides, next to a poured slab it is perfect.

What about thermodynamics.
To make the first layer you have:

10 meters x 100 cm/meter = 1000 per side by 2 sides = 1,000,000 centimeters
we can discount the other two cuts into the slope reductions. For the sake
of argument. I need 100 cuts to generate 1 meter in hieght same as the
previous, therefore I need what? 100 x 1,000,000, but also because it is
sloping let us say 92% (2 percent for the sides we discounted) = 92,000,000
cm of cut energy per meter height.

Let us go back to our equation

Each amount of cut, doesn't mater the direction result in the conversion
of energy (Millet + beef + beer + O2 ----> CO2 + feces + urine).

If a builder uses blocks he generates 1X amount of bull*** and piss
on the jobsite, but if he uses slabs he generates 100 fold more
bull*** and pissyness on his site. Somewhere else

(Seed + Sunlight + Water + CO2 --Farmer---> Grain + chaff + O2)
(Grain + Grass + calf + 02 --Shepherd or cowboy --> Cow or sheep + C02 +
Crap and urine, Cow + Sheep --butcher--> Meat + waste)
This process of production is a fraction as efficient as consumption, so we
allow 5 to 10 hours of food production for every hour spent burning
construction calories.

We have to look at motivations for structure, implimentation of structure
not result, the pyramid is made from blocks, the blocks are motivated
by a readily available material, soft limestone and energy required to cut.
There is a 2 fold dynamic for each moment of mass in the structure, outside
that 2 fold range too much energy is being exerted on the job site, each
amount of energy exerted requires food to be brought in and waste to be
removed. Therefore we can argue that transportation is _NOT_ the primary
motivating factor in block shapes or sizes (Up to a limit) but the energy
put into cutting the stone.

So now we have a motivation for blocks in cutting but no motivations
for pouring in situ.

What about solubilization of limestone, you say limestone fall apart with
water, but the limestone is on a plateau, and ash is scattered across a
fairly wide area, sand is close by. Suppose you were correct, you would
need to transport large amounts of water to flush off the concrete, and
energy involved in exposing the faces of aggregates (again sawing). This
believe has not precedent in fact.
The dispersibility of CaOH2 is about 1/2 teaspoon in 1 gallon of water (
from the aquarium trade which I used to be involved in) [CaOH never
completely dissolves, its maximal pH is about pH 10 which means it reaches
a final disolved concentraion of about 10^-4 molar or about 0.1 millimole
per liter]. One mole of CaOH2 is about 76 grams per mole meaning at
complete solubility it reaches a concentration of about 7.6 mg and this is
about 1000 times more soluble than CaCO3, which at equilbrium with CaCO3
reaches a pH of about 8.0, in fact the C02 in air was a major problem for
Dosing CaOH2 into reef aquariums Ca2+ + 2OH2- + CO2 + 2H20 ---> CaC03 + H20
and the resulting CaC03*?H20 salt clogs up the dosing apparatus.
IOW to liberate CaOH2 from such a deposit, if it existed with water would
require a volume of water 132000 times greater than the amount of CaOH2
liberated, and, the water used would need to be heated to close to boiling
first to liberate the CO2. So this water hypothesis for generating CaOH2
is also a farce.

How is 'Lime' generated
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_oxide

CaO + H20 ----> Ca(OH)2

CaC03 --Heat---> CaO + C02 Temperature of 825'C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcination
[Calcination is also involved in the conversion of anatase to rutile,
jogging some old memories]

Therefore we assume that calcium carbonate was cut into modest
peices at least down to gran sized peices before burning for uniform
heat transfer: Too hot on the outside calcium melts or fuses, to cold on
the inside the calcium does not decarbonate.

To achieve these peice sizes efficiently the
carbonate would first have to be broken or cut into smaller pieces
problably less than 2 feet thick. It could then be crushed by mallet
to the desired peice sizes and small peices removed and large peices
resmashed. We are going to assume that for each mass of CaCO3 added
we will need 2 times as much charcoal, requiring 2 times as much tree. So
about 4X wood per 1X CaC03; The molecular weight of CaCO3 = 40 + 12 + 48 =
100, molecular weight of CaO = 40 + 16 = 56, therefore for 0.56 mass of CaO
generated we need 1 lb of crushed limestone and 4 lbs of tree charcoal.
or to convert.
Ask yourself the question, why is dense agregate added to concrete?
CaO is expensive to make. CaO + H20 = CaOH2, CaOH2 + Sand-Si-OH =
Ca.Si~Sand~Si-O.Ca.O-Si-Aggregate........ = Concrete. The more sand
you have the more cement you need because the more surface are of sand
you have to coat with cement, therefore aggregate displaces cement and
sand, saves money. Concrete reaches maximum strength after about 50 years
of age (assuming a certain level of humidity) whereas aggregate, natures
concrete reached maximum strenth millions of years ago, so aggregate need
not be aged, and it is small enough when mixed with cement to be _Formed_
so, if you were going to be pouring concrete in situ, your best back for
the buck would be to throw in as large and as dense boulders as possible
into your concrete. Boulders taht could be rolled and dumped into the
slurry. But then the density is 2.5 to 2.7. Dense aggregate is used to
increase immediate strength and bulk of concrete, it saves all the crushing
and heating need to make cement, and in modern terms, 50 year old crushed
slab is aged enough to be used as aggregate for concrete. increasing the
bulk for minimal price. The other factor is strength, with 2 inch average
agregate the strength is about 3500 PSI and with 1/2 pebble its only 2500
PSI, again the aggregate is aged, stronger. The other reason for adding
aggregate is that in a soft mortar the larger the aggregate the higher
the viscosity, sot that if the material is put under deforming stress, it
will react only slowly to that stress. A small particle aggregate reacts to
stress, essentiall by spontaneous disintegration.

So we address the next part of your theory, loose limestone versus silicon
or silicon/calcite aggregate (rocks). Do you use wash limestones from low
quality quarry with poor strength, or other aggregates. The reason for
using aggregate is that it is coated with a reactive weak acid, such as
silicon oxide to crosslink Ca with sand, etc. A loose limestone is neither
reactive with limestone (as it would take 1000 years for it to adsorbe C02)
adequate to cross-link it, nor would it be immediately reactive, and
because the peices were of such poor constitution, the concrete would
simply crumble along the lines of packing of the aggregate in the settling
slurry. Finally at a density of >1.7, the limestone aggregate would float
to the surface of the 1 meter cubes it was formed in, since it is much
lighter than the density of CaO and sand.

The fact that only three great pyramids were made says something,
right.
After three structure built, the utility of the more pyramids with a
full
time staff of 1000s that need to be fed, housed, cared for, could be
building their own houses with the same materials, could be used as an
invasion army, could be securing trade. During the following period no
comparable structures have been built, not in 5000 years. We can
basically
argue that the structures themselves were very costly, so costly that
competition for bigger or greater structures was out of reach for just
about any group of people for 1000 of years.

Building a pyramid was also about faith and devotion.

Faith does not produce offspring, faith does not feed a family, faith
does not plant grain or irrigate it, faith cannot make the sun come up
nor go down. Faith is something fools follow and has no business in
science, unless you want to talk about the science of myth, but then
that is not an engineering science is it.
The building of the pyramids was a display of wealth and power, it was
designed to make people from far off lands fear the Egyptians and their
gods in the same way the biblical story of the great flood and the Mosaic
exodus are designed to make their followers and others fear god. It is
basically a play on peoples animistic and childish instincts. If these
mounds were built simply for the sake of the Egyptians, would they not be
built at Thebes? They were built on the nile, close to where travelers
entered and exited from the north and east. The Egyptians put alot of
effort into maintaining the god 'image' so much so they did not let
their trade partners from Canaan and Mesopotamia take their women as mates.

Those things are
hardly consistent over long period of time. A lost technic could also
prevent further gigantic building.

But technically a pyramid is easy to build. You can buy sqaure cobble
at just about any material yard, start with one stone on one corner, begin
adding one layer of stone at a time, morter between the joints, you can
keep doing this indefinitely (albeit not here in houston as the ground we
call gumbo would begin to crumble the structure at about 20M in height).
In fact the pyramid is one of the easiest structures to build, in
principle. Provided you buy reasonably flat sided stones and provided you
put at least some adherant between peices, you can keep building it until
you can breath (i.e. Mt Everest), tough you might need at least one more
supplier and a few more hands.

Pyramids were also a display of wealth as you correctly stated it:

Basically we could argue that under a best case
scenario the 'concrete pyramid' would only
be a sustainable effort during a period of perfect
agricultural production.

Those wealthy period don't last forever either.

Maybe 2 decade of years in one century.

I found you're demonstration about the cost of concrete pyramid very
interesting and not humourless.
I have a few remarks about the cost of a pyramid entirely made of quarry
stones, though.


The hewn stone model is somewhat cheaper. Assuming the transportation
cost of hewn stone and concrete is identical,

How can it be identical??? moving a 2 stone blocks to the top of a
pyramid can't be compared to moving limestone concrete in bags.

You assume that the scalar problem cannot be worked out. Consider
1 man can carry, repeatedly 1 50 lb bag of concrete.
If I give that man a wheel burrow he can carry 300 lbs of concrete.
If I put 4 men on a cart they can carry a ton of concrete. If I put
10 men on a massive cart, they can carry 20 tons of concrete. Bags are
no longer of any importance. In fact, at 20 tons a stack of bags takes
on fluid like properties that make carrying somewhat troublesome whereas a
stone braces its own internal structure. find a way to latch the stone
and you have a nice little package.
The tractor trailors that carry the bridge beams here have the front
assemblage and a small cable attacted to the rear wheels, the rear wheels
are actually attached to the concrete beam that is being carried. and needs
to be reconnected to the front wheels of the trailer once the beam is
removed. You cannot do that with a similar mass of concrete.
Some builder of the pyramids adjusted the size of blocks as a tradeoff
between the fewest number of cuts and the most convinient size to
transport.

we have to factor in
the cutting cost of a stone of about 1 yard in size, It would be cut in
3
directions. There are six sides, the freeing of 3 sides is accomplished
by the previous cycle, therefore only 3 sides need to be cut. This can
be
accomplished by saws and chisels [...]

Just to for information: They were using copper saws and chisel as well
as pick made of hard stone (dolerite).

Copper and bronze are only matters of degrees of contamination, look at
the level of contamination in their copper. Many authors don't distinquish
the copper and bronze ages any more, as in some areas no pure copper age
exists and in others the transition was more or less continuous.

[...] over about a 1 hour period of time for each side. Let us assume
that
the individual was subsistence value labor force, his worth per hour is
about 1.00 to 3.00 per hour, therefore he is going to put about 3 to 10
dollars into each stone, this lowers the cost of that 1 yard of material
from 90 to about 6$ per stone. [3 hours for one block, Impossible!,
check
out the sites below, this low density limestones is much more easily cut
than typical hard feild limestone most encounter]

3 hours a block? I did not see any clues about the time needed to quarry
a block in the link you cited. I'm interested in any reference on the
subject proving your point.

This is based on my experience. Although I would need a sample of the
stone to be more accurate, assuming that their limestone was similar in
hardness to the limestone we used to have to cutthrough in our remodeling
projects.

For concrete the casts have to be cleaned and the cement weakens the
wood
on each use, so that forms can only be used a few times each.

No cleaning necessary and nothing very agressive like modern cements was
used for limestone based concrete. Moreover the wood was protected from
moisture with oil.

All concrete (except asphalt concrete) is limestone based.

Limestone --Heat--> CaO (see below)
CaO + Ash + Sand + Aggregate + Water = Concrete.
Some of the more silty sand and ash are some of the harder
ancient concretes.

Concrete does not contain much water, that is correct. but hewn
limestone
of the period is much lighter than concrete, as concrete contains the
heavier silicon.

Your mistake here. Nobody claimed that the concrete stones were made of
actual sand (i. e. silicon). Davidovits claims that they are made of
reagglomerated limestone (nummulites shells).

Then it is not concrete, because in ancient Aluminum poor cements the
reaction that gives rise to concretes strength is between the CaOH, the
Ash, and the Si-O, also known as Alkali-Silicon Reaction. In modern
concrete the reaction is largely performed in a kiln which preforms
Ca3SiO5(s). The ASR reaction in concrete formation is actually undesirable
because ASRs expand while curing concrete contracts, over time ASR
causes concrete cancer. However when ancient cements contained primative
ashes the alkali reaction was the predominant one.
One of the problems with all ancient mortars that was corrected with
modern cement is interesting problem, because with ancient mortars
there was always an excess of alkali, and CO2 was adsorbed on the surface
first, so that the surface stone set first and the interior reached maximum
size often much later depending on thickness, decades later, this causes
rupturing. Modern concrete sets pretty much at the same time, but
residual CaOH2 in the mixture adsorbes CO2 or which then makes
it further reactive with Si-OH causing the a rupturing of the surface.
MOdern concrete engineers spray the concrete with water for several
days at a time to keep the concrete from fully setting while
allowing the surface to fully expand, thus preventing chipping on the
surface. Such measures are taken in dams and water supply lines
where the laminar flow of fluids across the surface of the concrete
is important.

In some ways roman concrete is superior to modern concrete, but for the
most part it was a luxory.

http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/spillway/spillway.htm
"
A chemical reaction took place between the chemicals in the wall of
volcanic ash (silica and small amounts of alumina and iron oxide) and the
layer of lime (calcium hydroxide) applied to the wall. Later they found
that mixing a little volcanic ash in a fine powder with the moist lime made
a thicker coat, but it also produced a durable product that could be
submerged in water- something that the plaster product of wet lime and
plain sand could not match.
"

Right because the sand has a flat surface area and the solubility
of Ca(OH)2 is low, so it balls up into lime, so something needs to be added
to the lime as it is being hydrated to disperse it, as one disperse
collagen in a gel.

http://www.romanconcrete.com/docs/spillway/spillway.htm
The rest of the article is worth reading.

"
The ancients hand mixed their components (wet lime and volcanic ash) in a
mortar box with very little water to give a nearly dry composition; carried
it to the job site in baskets placing it over a previously prepared layer
of rock pieces; and then proceeded to pound the mortar into the rock layer.
Fortunately, we have proof. Vitruvius, the noted Roman architect (cir. 20
BC) mentioned this process in his history formulas for his concrete, plus
the fact that special tamping tools were used to build a cistern wall. Is
this important? Yes, close packing of the molecular structure by tamping
reduced the need of excess water, which is a source of voids and weakness.
But also close packing produces more bonding gel than might be normally
expected. Again, we have a similarity in the ancient and roller compacted
concrete practices, which is that of tightly compacting the materials in
their placement.
"

basically what the ancients are doing is activating the concrete in the
same way we add water and mix modern concrete. A soft mix in preparation
then pound the aggregates to get new active sites exposed and then forming
the concrete to allow the process to complete, hardening. This is exactly
the type of concrete the romans used in their waterworks, it is improved
over modern concrete because the final reaction is uniform throughout, and
no ASR expansion occurs.

Therefore, the density is
not different that the one of natural limestone (<2).

It is because soft limestone is the product of non-compression, take
a look at soft limestone the next time you get a chance, you will
see shells and air pockets between shells, etc. It is not compressed
if you look at honey-comb stone or cave stone you will notice
a major difference, there is almost no visible shells and no visible
cavities. This has result because one set of limestones was compressed over
much of the geological time frame, whereas the other was not.
Because soft limestone is full of air pockets. When that structure is
decomposed and recomposed it is similar to the geological processes
of compression. I used to use river stone, essentially hard limestone
pebbles for shot, not as good as meteorites, but still hard enough to kill
little varmits I used to shoot at. Soft limestone, by the same token
makes a nice little explosion effect when it hits a hard object, without
much penetration capacity (like the difference between buck shot and rock
salt).
To make a concrete you need particles the either fuse or interlock
when settled or reacted. Recrushing CaCO3 will not result in cement.
Even adding sand to CaOH2 will result in concrete after a fairly long
period in which the finally product is neither strong nor resistent to
water. Note below that the major reaction in Cement occurs not in
the concretization process, but in the kiln at 1350'C.
The egyptians used a form of mortar called gypsum mortar, FYI, it was
relatively soft and not water tolerant. Such mortars are still used around
the world in dry climates, for example where adobe is suitable. Provide
that moisture content was maintained for a long period, and provided
that the packing of silican was fairly dense, and provided aggregate
such as bamboo strips or cedar strips could be added to the mortar
it can be induced to form a stable concrete, the process would take several
years to cure and it would need to be fixed from the exterior to prevent
subsequent moisture penetration.

Let's see how you are going to lie and wiggle you way out of
these facts, this time.

You're welcome. But calling me a liar won't help the debates. right?

No, but it points out a fact, when confronted with critiques you
respond with falsitudes and inaccuracies (see post by D. Weller for
but another obvious example of your tailspin). To give credit
where credit is due we had another kook, the late L. Athy, who
aspired such crap. It was attacked in 2002 ---
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.archaeology/msg/68bfdf7381a516e7?
dmode=source [watch the wrap see header X-linkout] -- apparently not worthy
of any further attention.

Concrete and lime based cements are an interesting topic of archaeological
discussion, even on my very strict standards, but more often than
not we don't discuss the archaeology of concrete, but the debunking of
some kooks theory. As you will read above.

BTW the oldest cements are also interesting, if you want to discussed
the use of tree resins and laquer in stool tool composites. Lime is also
of interest, it was used by native in the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamal a process that is fairly unique in
indigeonous cooking. We never enter the discussion with actually an intent
on talking about the evolution and archaeology of concretes and cements,
we often end up discussing the archaeology as an effort to debunk the
original misguided intent, an intent that is easily corrected with some
reading.

Anyway,I have absolutely no interest in defending Davidovits theory, but
I found it quite interesting since it was clearly demonstrated that
casting stones was possible using local materials.

There are alot of interesting kook theories, and alot of motivations
for interesting kook theories. Before you look at the theory of
interest you should look at the motivation of interest, and who is bringing
these things up. I have people around who are egyptians who believe the
Jews built the pyramids, course they also beleive the world began 6000
years ago. Many people have many motivations for what they believe, and
scientist are often mislead by the facts, but as facts accumulate it
becomes clear that some hypotheses must be discarded.
There are also alot of people on the UseNet, and alot of people who have
long histories on the UseNet, and alot of people who have engaged in
debates you THINK may be new to the UseNet. Before you go running off
with a fascinating brain-fart you might want to use the [group] section of
the drop down goggle toolbar just to see what the people you are debating
with know and have discussed on the issue, right, otherwise you could
end up looking like a fool and having to fib your way out of precarious
position.

Had you done that you would have read the following:

"
Perhaps the most prosaic of these theories was described in detail in The
Pyramids: An Enigma Solved by Dr. Joseph Davidovits and Margie Morris
(Dorset Press, 1988; see also Pyramid Illusions: A Journey to the Truth by
Moustafa Gadalla, 1997). Davidovits provides a brief summation:

I will demonstrate that the pyramid blocks are actually exceptionally high-
quality limestone concrete -- synthetic stone -- cast directly in place.
The blocks consist of about ninety to ninety-five percent limestone rubble
and five to ten percent cement. They are imitations of natural limestone,
made in the age-old tradition of alchemical stonemaking. No stone cutting
or heavy hauling or hoisting was ever required for pyramid construction.
[p. 68]
"

IOW, he believes the stones were built in Situ, which means why do
they build the structure in blocks at all. you have 4 guys hauling a cart
1 guy hauling water, they mix the cement and spread it out over a fill
in area. There is no need for blocks. Secondarily the density of concrete
is 2.3 to 2.5 and the density of the pyramids is 1.8.
He does not give any justification why the pyramids would be
poured in blocks in situ, versus slabs as concrete is traditionally
poured, nor with the ability to increase block sizes to 10 or 100 times
the actual size (concrete can be continually added to while wet without
weaking its structure). If we go by prd who with 40lb back of concrete
a hoe and two pickle buckets can mix one bag per 3 minutes on site and we
have say 10 guys working an 8 hour day. At the end of the day how much
concrete would we have, let us assume that the chain of guys carrying trays
is unlimited, we don't care how the powder gets there, and let us assume
there is a 30% efficiency so let us say 10 minutes per 40lbs. 8 hours *
10 * 6 = 480 * 40 = 19200 lbs per block. If you had two shifts per day
the block size would be 40,000 lbs or 20 tons. Why stop however you could
have 3 shifts per day and you could fill in an entire floor layer?

What is the reason they used blocks at all if they had pourable concrete.

BTW just because limestone is soft does not mean if falls apart in water.
There are limestones in texas so soft you can imprint them with your fist
and have survived the 'flash flood capital of the world' for 50 million
years.

IOW, the theory is a misstep.

You stumble along to have done all but the most superficial internet
research and think it is interesting. I think GW Bush 'yellow cake'
hypothesis is interesting, but the question is whether it is a reason for
going to war, a fabrication, or extremely poorly researched information.

Lots of kook theories in the world, very few people willing to take enough
time to study the problem, dot their theoretical "i"s and cross their
"t"s. Anyone can make an error, and with Dougy, he has made quite a few,
but, he is more familiar with the issue and history thereof than you are,
which means you should have attempted to find out what he knew, and google
and google groups should be familiar with everyone, Right? Use it, then ask
questions about issues you don't understand or don't agree with. [You'll
put Dougy on the defensive anyway, he doesn't liked to be researched, he
likes to be the one researching others].



.

Loading