[sceptimatic]

Can anyone explain this video that shows Armstrong's boots on his space suit being totally different to the imprints on the so called moon, as we are all told about?

Take a look at the video.

[markjo]

Simple.  The astronauts wore overboots (like galoshes) while on the moon.
http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/bootglove.htm

[sceptimatic]

Simple.  The astronauts wore overboots (like galoshes) while on the moon.
http://www.ninfinger.org/karld/My%20Space%20Museum/bootglove.htm

Ok markjo, it's an explanation of sorts and does appear plausible when looked at from a distant thought process but starts to appear decidedly dodgy when rationally examined in terms of safety and dexterity on a supposed moon.

By rationally, I mean the rational things that so called safety experts an d so called moon environment experts would potentially for-see.

Anyway based on this I'll put a few questions forward. I'm not particularly asking you to answer them, I'm more, putting them out as thought processes to those who are questioning all this stuff, rather than just accepting any explanation going.
You see; I think NASA was caught short with this boot stuff in the early days and didn't bank on people having the ability to go over this stuff in detail; so when the moon suit and attached boots were shown and the sole didn't match the moon tread, this over boot was added in to cater for that discrepancy.

Anyway, about this questioning.

1. Why would so called experts create an over boot that clearly does not offer any means of stopping supposed moon dust from gathering inside of it and creating a huge friction effect on the material inside with potential leakage a real danger?

2. How on Earth would astronauts manage to take these boots off and put them  back on?

Of course the answer could easily be, " well they just put on their suits half way and put the boots on, the fasten them with bare hands before fully suiting up."

The problem with this is, the suits are supposedly "as we are told", SPACE SHIPS. meaning they require much more than just sitting there slinging them on as if you are putting on a pair of work overalls. Anyone see what I mean?

Another reason they could use is, they fully suit up and then put on the boots, then attach their gloves by twisting them on but that leaves a few massive issues in the dexterity of doing this with gloved hands not to mention back packs on suits stopping them.

Last of all they could use the excuse that they empty the boots and then reattach them to the empty suit then climb in.
Seems one hell of a carry on in such a cramped space, right?

Imagine all that dust getting pushed into the so called air vents inside this little craft, off their caked boots. It's like throwing dry dust about from a broken hoover.


As  a side note, I wonder how they managed to play about with an airlock for getting out and back in and how they managed this whilst also managing to equalise pressure inside their suits at the same time in that cramped space, because remember, one can't do it for the other, it has to be done for both at the same time.

Just a few musings for those with a mind to question.

[Rayzor]

Here is a good documentary on the trials and tribulations of developing the space suit.

[sceptimatic]

Here is a good documentary on the trials and tribulations of developing the space suit.

I watched it all and it doesn't answer any of my questions at all.

[markjo]

1. Why would so called experts create an over boot that clearly does not offer any means of stopping supposed moon dust from gathering inside of it and creating a huge friction effect on the material inside with potential leakage a real danger?

How much friction would you expect from moon dust that has about the same consistency of talc powder?

2. How on Earth would astronauts manage to take these boots off and put them  back on?

Probably with lots of practice.

Imagine all that dust getting pushed into the so called air vents inside this little craft, off their caked boots. It's like throwing dry dust about from a broken hoover.

Saying that the lunar dust was caked on suggests that it was wet and clumpy.  The dust was actually very dry and likely wouldn't be caked on the overboots.

As  a side note, I wonder how they managed to play about with an airlock for getting out and back in and how they managed this whilst also managing to equalise pressure inside their suits at the same time in that cramped space, because remember, one can't do it for the other, it has to be done for both at the same time.

The lunar module didn't have an airlock.  I'm not sure what you mean about equalizing the pressure in the suits.

[sceptimatic]

How much friction would you expect from moon dust that has about the same consistency of talc powder?

Here's what they had to say.

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin returned from the moon, their cargo included nearly fifty pounds of rock and soil, which were packed in an aluminum box with seals designed to maintain the lunar surface’s low-pressure environment. But back at Johnson Space Center, in Houston, scientists discovered that the seals had been destroyed—by moon dust.

Lunar dust is fine, like a powder, but it cuts like glass.

It’s formed when meteoroids crash on the moon’s surface, heating and pulverizing rocks and dirt, which contain silica and metals such as iron. Since there’s no wind or water to smooth rough edges, the tiny grains are sharp and jagged, and cling to nearly everything.

“The invasive nature of lunar dust represents a more challenging engineering design issue, as well as a health issue for settlers, than does radiation,” wrote Harrison (Jack) Schmitt, an Apollo 17 astronaut, in his 2006 book, “Return to the Moon.” The dust sullied spacesuits and ate away layers of moon boots. Over the course of six Apollo missions, not one rock box maintained its vacuum seal. Dust followed the astronauts back into their ships, too. According to Schmitt, it smelled like gunpowder and made breathing difficult. No one knows precisely what the microscopic particles do to human lungs.

It seems that this so called moon dust is more of a problem than talcum powder, right.
It even smells like gunpowder, so said Neil and Buzz.

Weirdly in many video clips, you see these death wish astronothing's falling over and  skipping along around rocks without a care in the world, ermmm, moon.
Imagine those rocks, they must be like razor wire to the touch. Obviously in the real life and not the fantasy world they place our minds in; or did, once upon a time.

Saying that the lunar dust was caked on suggests that it was wet and clumpy.  The dust was actually very dry and likely wouldn't be caked on the overboots.

Yeah I suppose I can see why "caked" would make you think that. It's just an English word for messy clothes or skin with anything, wet or dry.

The lunar module didn't have an airlock.  I'm not sure what you mean about equalizing the pressure in the suits.

Well what I mean is, they say the space suits are pressurised to around 4 psi or so, maybe 5. The LM will be pressurised to normal Earth atmospheric pressure of around 14 - 15 psi.

Remember the so called ISS is said to be pressurised to 14.7 psi.
Anyway, once they leave the LM they leave the LM in a vacuum inside of it, just like the moon they're on, or supposedly on as we are told.
This means that when they enter the LM after their moon walk, they have to repressurise the LM to 14/15 psi which means they have to also depressurise the suits.
Divers on Earth have to go into chambers but astronauts in school made LM's don't need to adjust it seems.

[markjo]

How much friction would you expect from moon dust that has about the same consistency of talc powder?

Here's what they had to say.

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin returned from the moon, their cargo included nearly fifty pounds of rock and soil, which were packed in an aluminum box with seals designed to maintain the lunar surface’s low-pressure environment. But back at Johnson Space Center, in Houston, scientists discovered that the seals had been destroyed—by moon dust.

Lunar dust is fine, like a powder, but it cuts like glass.

Then I suppose that it's a good thing that the Apollo space suits had lots of layers.

The lunar module didn't have an airlock.  I'm not sure what you mean about equalizing the pressure in the suits.

Well what I mean is, they say the space suits are pressurised to around 4 psi or so, maybe 5. The LM will be pressurised to normal Earth atmospheric pressure of around 14 - 15 psi.

The LEM was pressurized to the same 4.8 or so psi as the space suits.

[sceptimatic]

How much friction would you expect from moon dust that has about the same consistency of talc powder?

Here's what they had to say.

When Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin returned from the moon, their cargo included nearly fifty pounds of rock and soil, which were packed in an aluminum box with seals designed to maintain the lunar surface’s low-pressure environment. But back at Johnson Space Center, in Houston, scientists discovered that the seals had been destroyed—by moon dust.

Lunar dust is fine, like a powder, but it cuts like glass.

Then I suppose that it's a good thing that the Apollo space suits had lots of layers.

The lunar module didn't have an airlock.  I'm not sure what you mean about equalizing the pressure in the suits.

Well what I mean is, they say the space suits are pressurised to around 4 psi or so, maybe 5. The LM will be pressurised to normal Earth atmospheric pressure of around 14 - 15 psi.

The LEM was pressurized to the same 4.8 or so psi as the space suits.

Answer me this question. At what height up a mountain and what drop in psi pressure would kill any person.
When you find this out you will then realise that no suit nor so called LM can be pressurised so low as to keep a man alive under that environment.

We can acclimatise to lower pressure but not that extreme and it's for a very good reason. We need that pressure to keep our cells from falling apart from our bodies by expansion.

I'm certain you'll argue the point but for anyone else wanting to think on it, try and understand why you're alive at sea level and why mountain climbing to severe height kills you. Once you grasp this, you'll understand why this space stuff is mere fantasy with the pressures we get told about.

[markjo]

Answer me this question. At what height up a mountain and what drop in psi pressure would kill any person.
When you find this out you will then realise that no suit nor so called LM can be pressurised so low as to keep a man alive under that environment.

We can acclimatise to lower pressure but not that extreme and it's for a very good reason. We need that pressure to keep our cells from falling apart from our bodies by expansion.

It isn't low pressure as it is low oxygen content.  Did you know that oxygen makes up only about 1/5 of our atmosphere?  So if you reduce the pressure, you're also reducing the amount of oxygen available to your body.  However, if you increase the percentage of oxygen, then you have can lower the pressure and still have the same amount of oxygen available to your body.  A 100% pure oxygen environment at 5 psi supplies about as much oxygen to your body as 15 psi of atmosphere.

By the way, 5 psi of atmosphere is roughly equivalent to a little over 25,000 feet, which is lower than Mt Everest (29,000 feet).  If people can climb Mt. Everest and not explode, then I think that they can handle the reduced pressure in the LEM.

[sceptimatic]

Answer me this question. At what height up a mountain and what drop in psi pressure would kill any person.
When you find this out you will then realise that no suit nor so called LM can be pressurised so low as to keep a man alive under that environment.

We can acclimatise to lower pressure but not that extreme and it's for a very good reason. We need that pressure to keep our cells from falling apart from our bodies by expansion.

It isn't low pressure as it is low oxygen content.  Did you know that oxygen makes up only about 1/5 of our atmosphere?  So if you reduce the pressure, you're also reducing the amount of oxygen available to your body.  However, if you increase the percentage of oxygen, then you have can lower the pressure and still have the same amount of oxygen available to your body.  A 100% pure oxygen environment at 5 psi supplies about as much oxygen to your body as 15 psi of atmosphere.

By the way, 5 psi of atmosphere is roughly equivalent to a little over 25,000 feet, which is lower than Mt Everest (29,000 feet).  If people can climb Mt. Everest and not explode, then I think that they can handle the reduced pressure in the LEM.

Nothing to do with exploding on mount Everest. Nobody has ever climbed it anyway but that's beside the point for now.

Breathing pure oxygen is one thing but pressure on your body is another thing.Also pressure placed upon one thing must have some counter action in order for that thing not to expand and breach.

It goes for humans or pieces of crap like fake LM moon craft.
It's why balloons expand when pressure is evacuated from a chamber and would happen to the space man or the LM if space was real.

[markjo]

Nothing to do with exploding on mount Everest. Nobody has ever climbed it anyway but that's beside the point for now.

You're kidding, right? 

Breathing pure oxygen is one thing but pressure on your body is another thing.Also pressure placed upon one thing must have some counter action in order for that thing not to expand and breach.

It goes for humans or pieces of crap like fake LM moon craft.
It's why balloons expand when pressure is evacuated from a chamber and would happen to the space man or the LM if space was real.

Latex balloons are very elastic.  Human skin and metal containers, not so much.

[sceptimatic]

Nothing to do with exploding on mount Everest. Nobody has ever climbed it anyway but that's beside the point for now.

You're kidding, right? 

No I'm not kidding.

Breathing pure oxygen is one thing but pressure on your body is another thing.Also pressure placed upon one thing must have some counter action in order for that thing not to expand and breach.

It goes for humans or pieces of crap like fake LM moon craft.
It's why balloons expand when pressure is evacuated from a chamber and would happen to the space man or the LM if space was real.

Latex balloons are very elastic.  Human skin and metal containers, not so much.

Correct, metal containers are flimsy as hell; especially this cereal type box, school project like effigy of a LM that could not contain any pressure and hold it because there is no counter pressure.

The supposed moon vacuum offers no resistant force to the internal pressure in that LM.
They made the mistake of showing us a flimsy tin foil and paper skin, or to give them a bit extra; thin aluminium sheets.
Pump 5psi into a football on Earth and it won't go bang. You can kick it and bounce the hell out of it for long enough and it won't go bang. The reason for this is due to a resistant force on the outer.
Put that same ball into a chamber and start to evacuate just a small amount of pressure. That ball will explode because the atmospheric matter inside that ball will expand for every amount of pressure released from its outer skin.
Now remember, this is just atmospheric pressure under normal life giving circumstances. It is not compressed oxygen inside containers in some flimsy craft on some fictional moon in a vacuum.
Just imagine what would happen to that craft and in reality, to their space suits.

It matters not about the so called space suit bladder and over suit covering that bladder. Only in fantasy world would that not breach or blow the actornaut's suit up literally like a michelin man, before seeing his face and body start to expand. Just like this movie.


he moon stuff would have been slightly more believable if they landed in a craft that actually looked like it could do a job of not losing all of it's internal life giving atmosphere, such as making the skin actually look like you could survive inside of it.

[markjo]

Nothing to do with exploding on mount Everest. Nobody has ever climbed it anyway but that's beside the point for now.

You're kidding, right? 

No I'm not kidding.

Wow.  Just, wow.

Correct, metal containers are flimsy as hell...

Tell that to SCUBA divers.

...especially this cereal type box, school project like effigy of a LM that could not contain any pressure and hold it because there is no counter pressure.

Actually, the counter pressure comes from the rigidity of the metal that is used to make the LEM.

The supposed moon vacuum offers no resistant force to the internal pressure in that LM.

Of course not.  Why should it? 

They made the mistake of showing us a flimsy tin foil and paper skin, or to give them a bit extra; thin aluminium sheets.

The "tin foil" was for thermal protection, not structural integrity.  That would be from the thin metal sheets that only need to resist a 5 psi pressure differential.

Pump 5psi into a football on Earth and it won't go bang. You can kick it and bounce the hell out of it for long enough and it won't go bang. The reason for this is due to a resistant force on the outer.
Put that same ball into a chamber and start to evacuate just a small amount of pressure. That ball will explode because the atmospheric matter inside that ball will expand for every amount of pressure released from its outer skin.

When you pump a football to 5 psi, that's 5 psi above ambient pressure.  That means that the actual pressure inside the football is closer to 20 psi of absolute pressure.  Now if you put that same football in a vacuum chamber, then the pressure will be about 20 psi above ambient pressure.  That's a big difference from a football that's inflated to 5 psi of absolute pressure that's inside a vacuum chamber.  Either way, I doubt that a 20 psi pressure differential would be enough to rupture a football, regardless of its environment.

In fact, why don't you show me a video of an inflated football exploding inside a vacuum chamber so that I know that you aren't just making stuff up to sound dramatic.

[sceptimatic]

Nothing to do with exploding on mount Everest. Nobody has ever climbed it anyway but that's beside the point for now.

You're kidding, right? 

No I'm not kidding.

Wow.  Just, wow.

Correct, metal containers are flimsy as hell...

Tell that to SCUBA divers.

...especially this cereal type box, school project like effigy of a LM that could not contain any pressure and hold it because there is no counter pressure.

Actually, the counter pressure comes from the rigidity of the metal that is used to make the LEM.

The supposed moon vacuum offers no resistant force to the internal pressure in that LM.

Of course not.  Why should it? 

They made the mistake of showing us a flimsy tin foil and paper skin, or to give them a bit extra; thin aluminium sheets.

The "tin foil" was for thermal protection, not structural integrity.  That would be from the thin metal sheets that only need to resist a 5 psi pressure differential.

Pump 5psi into a football on Earth and it won't go bang. You can kick it and bounce the hell out of it for long enough and it won't go bang. The reason for this is due to a resistant force on the outer.
Put that same ball into a chamber and start to evacuate just a small amount of pressure. That ball will explode because the atmospheric matter inside that ball will expand for every amount of pressure released from its outer skin.

When you pump a football to 5 psi, that's 5 psi above ambient pressure.  That means that the actual pressure inside the football is closer to 20 psi of absolute pressure.  Now if you put that same football in a vacuum chamber, then the pressure will be about 20 psi above ambient pressure.  That's a big difference from a football that's inflated to 5 psi of absolute pressure that's inside a vacuum chamber.  Either way, I doubt that a 20 psi pressure differential would be enough to rupture a football, regardless of its environment.

In fact, why don't you show me a video of an inflated football exploding inside a vacuum chamber so that I know that you aren't just making stuff up to sound dramatic.

That school project looking LM is no scuba tank, is it? It's a flimsy THIN sheeted aluminium piece of crap and by the looks of it.
I'm naturally only going by what the so called experts tell us about this.

Having a force inside of that LM as in, a pressure, would breach it because there is no counter force to stop that happening. And once again, it is not a scuba tank.

About the football being pumped with 5 psi to end up at 5psi over normal atmospheric to reach 20 psi. Yeah that's right and there's no issue here because it still has 15 psi as a counter force on its external skin and that counter force is stopping that ball from exploding whilst the inner skin holds the other 5psi.

In your space vacuum you have a space suit that is pressurised to around 5 psi (approx), with no external pressure against it like the football has at sea level. It's simply 5 psi against no counter resistance.

The trouble with this space stuff is, they have to fill us with bullshit about the air pressures and vacuums and stuff because they know fine well that it's all crap and cannot be done.
We can prove it cannot be done by using our own vacuum chambers for smaller items to show what would really happen.
However when it comes to the feats of fantasy astronauts, they can survive a rip in a suit for long periods of time, as Kittinger supposedly did on his near vacuum supposed skydive in the late 50's; but anyway.

You see, this is why these supposed Everest conquering adrenalin junkies are not exactly conquering anything other than a low point that allows them to survive on excess oxygen brought with them.
Even if those mountaineers went up the mountain in so called space suits, they wouldn't make it very far, even if the suits afforded them full movement.

There's a reason why things expand. There's a reason why metal shatters or expands and it's to do with too much or too little agitation of atmosphere, because that friction expands or melts steel  but lack of it can also condense it to the point of brittle.

In so called space we would be dealing with extremes against anything put into it if it were real and possible, which it isn't.
There's a reason why stowaways are found frozen to death in planes that have ascended to heights like Everest. This is because there is no agitation or matter, just like in fantasy space there would be none, except your body which would give up its agitated state to the surrounding near vacuum to try and equalise with it by expansion.

For the rational thinking person who is prepared to see the very basics of expansion and how it occurs, they should be under no illusions at all about space and man made materials not working within it, even if they accept space being real.

When a deep sea diver descends, his body is being compressed and so is his lungs. If he goes too far down he will be compressed too much and will simply die.
To ensure he survives, he must be brought up slowly so that he can decompress and even go into a decompression chamber to aid in bringing his body back to normal working sea level pressure.

In space as we are told, being a near vacuum, we have the opposite. We have the space diver, if you like. Only this time this person would be expanding as they went further up in height. Start with Everest. You see, lack of atmospheric pressure upon their bodies and lungs means their bodies expand to fill that space or to equalise with that pressure difference.
The problem with this is, the body has to take deeper breaths to try and take in more air and this is where the oxygen comes in, which supplements it whilst you acclimatise.
The problem is, the human body can only acclimatise to a certain point before it breaks down and dies.

If you were to be shot up in a rocket into so called space then your body would have to immediately start to acclimatise  on the way up at those speeds. It's the opposite of the diver. Now imagine the diver being dragged up at super speed?
Imagine the diver being dragged down at super speed?
Imagine a submariner being dragged up or down at super speed.
It's  instant death by expansion or compression of the body.

Now imagine these so called astronauts dropping from space in to the atmosphere and to the ground at those so called speeds. Imagine the acclimatisation?
Well think of the re-entry cone and them inside of it pressurised with pure oxygen and hurtling into atmosphere then to the ground.

Seriously think about it and it should become clear how absurd it is.

[markjo]

That school project looking LM is no scuba tank, is it? It's a flimsy THIN sheeted aluminium piece of crap and by the looks of it.

So you've never actually examined it in person?  Have you ever considered the possibility that you can't always get enough information from a few pictures to make an intelligent assessment?

I'm naturally only going by what the so called experts tell us about this.

Which experts might those be?  Perhaps the ones that say that the LEM is designed to perform specific duties in a specific environment?

Having a force inside of that LM as in, a pressure, would breach it because there is no counter force to stop that happening. And once again, it is not a scuba tank.

It only needs to resist 5 psi of absolute pressure.  How thick do the walls need to be?

About the football being pumped with 5 psi to end up at 5psi over normal atmospheric to reach 20 psi. Yeah that's right and there's no issue here because it still has 15 psi as a counter force on its external skin and that counter force is stopping that ball from exploding whilst the inner skin holds the other 5psi.

So if a football can resist 5 psi over atmospheric pressure, then why shouldn't the LEM be able to resist 5 psi over vacuum pressure?  It doesn't matter if it's the difference between 20 and 15 psi or 5 and 0 psi, it's still 5 psi that we're talking about. 

In your space vacuum you have a space suit that is pressurised to around 5 psi (approx), with no external pressure against it like the football has at sea level. It's simply 5 psi against no counter resistance.

Except the resistance of the metal walls of the LEM.

The trouble with this space stuff is, they have to fill us with bullshit about the air pressures and vacuums and stuff because they know fine well that it's all crap and cannot be done.

Except that pressures and vacuums are used every day on earth without any apparent difficulty.

We can prove it cannot be done by using our own vacuum chambers for smaller items to show what would really happen.

Then please do show us how it can't be done in a vacuum chamber.

However when it comes to the feats of fantasy astronauts, they can survive a rip in a suit for long periods of time, as Kittinger supposedly did on his near vacuum supposed skydive in the late 50's; but anyway.

Just because Kittinger survived the rip in his pressure suit doesn't mean that he was unharmed because of it.

You see, this is why these supposed Everest conquering adrenalin junkies are not exactly conquering anything other than a low point that allows them to survive on excess oxygen brought with them.

Are they also bringing excess atmospheric pressure so that they don't explode from the lack of pressure?

Even if those mountaineers went up the mountain in so called space suits, they wouldn't make it very far, even if the suits afforded them full movement.

Oh?  Why not?

There's a reason why things expand. There's a reason why metal shatters or expands and it's to do with too much or too little agitation of atmosphere, because that friction expands or melts steel  but lack of it can also condense it to the point of brittle.

Yes, scientists and engineers have been studying the expansion and strength of metals for a lot of years and have gotten quite good at making metals (along with a variety of other nonmetals) that can work quite nicely in some very extreme environments.  You should look into it some day.

In so called space we would be dealing with extremes against anything put into it if it were real and possible, which it isn't.

Because you say so.

There's a reason why stowaways are found frozen to death in planes that have ascended to heights like Everest. This is because there is no agitation or matter, just like in fantasy space there would be none, except your body which would give up its agitated state to the surrounding near vacuum to try and equalise with it by expansion.

Can you show me an example where a stowaway exploded due to lack of air pressure as opposed to freezing or suffocating to death?

For the rational thinking person who is prepared to see the very basics of expansion and how it occurs, they should be under no illusions at all about space and man made materials not working within it, even if they accept space being real.

What makes you think that your explanation for expansion is more rational than that of scientists and engineers who work with it for a living?

When a deep sea diver descends, his body is being compressed and so is his lungs. If he goes too far down he will be compressed too much and will simply die.
To ensure he survives, he must be brought up slowly so that he can decompress and even go into a decompression chamber to aid in bringing his body back to normal working sea level pressure.

In space as we are told, being a near vacuum, we have the opposite. We have the space diver, if you like. Only this time this person would be expanding as they went further up in height. Start with Everest. You see, lack of atmospheric pressure upon their bodies and lungs means their bodies expand to fill that space or to equalise with that pressure difference.
The problem with this is, the body has to take deeper breaths to try and take in more air and this is where the oxygen comes in, which supplements it whilst you acclimatise.
The problem is, the human body can only acclimatise to a certain point before it breaks down and dies.

Duh.  That's why you go into space in a pressurized space ship and wear a pressurized space suit.

If you were to be shot up in a rocket into so called space then your body would have to immediately start to acclimatise  on the way up at those speeds. It's the opposite of the diver. Now imagine the diver being dragged up at super speed?
Imagine the diver being dragged down at super speed?
Imagine a submariner being dragged up or down at super speed.
It's  instant death by expansion or compression of the body.

Do you think that astronauts are going into space in an open cockpit space ship like a WWI fighter pilot?

Now imagine these so called astronauts dropping from space in to the atmosphere and to the ground at those so called speeds. Imagine the acclimatisation?
Well think of the re-entry cone and them inside of it pressurised with pure oxygen and hurtling into atmosphere then to the ground.

Seriously think about it and it should become clear how absurd it is.

I'm sorry, but when I think about it, the only thing that becomes clear is how absurd your argument is.

[sceptimatic]

You didn't say much for the amount of quoting, markjo.

I'll leave that for other people to muse over.

[markjo]

You didn't say much for the amount of quoting, markjo.

So admit that you're unable or unwilling to answer any of my questions?  That's not very sporting of you, is it?

[sceptimatic]

You didn't say much for the amount of quoting, markjo.

So admit that you're unable or unwilling to answer any of my questions?  That's not very sporting of you, is it?

Answer what questions?
Put one to me.

[markjo]

You didn't say much for the amount of quoting, markjo.

So admit that you're unable or unwilling to answer any of my questions?  That's not very sporting of you, is it?

Answer what questions?
Put one to me.

There were 10 questions in that post.  Take your pick.