Call "bullshit" on Hollywood technology

[Ender]

If a cable snaps, it can cut a person in two. Busted
A 5/8" cable at 30,000 lbs of tension was unable to cut a pig in two (or even cut into it), but did cause potentially lethal injuries. The MythBusters took the test even further by adding a smaller cable at the end of larger one to create a "whip" effect, and even pre-looped a cable around the pig itself. None of these methods could cut the pig by the pre-tensed cable's inertia alone. The pig was cut in half only when Adam tied a cable around it and then tightened the cable. Also, after making inquiries with almost every safety organization imaginable, the MythBusters were unable to find any concrete evidence of a person being cut in half by a snapped cable.

BMCM Brashear would disagree. While a natural line or a steel cable won't do it, a synthetic line that gives can easily remove limbs or kill a man.

I've heard it from many a sea-story myself but I've never seen any documented proof.

What are you, fucking retarded? This is a famous real life story - they made a god damn movie about him.

Here's a wild thought fucko - instead of just running around crying bullshit to everything, how about you to your own fucking research? You'd easily turn us several cases of people losing limbs to synthetic line snapping.

But hey, whatever. it's not like the people who work with these lines wouldn't know what the fuck they are doing, and are clearly all horrible liars making up stoiries just so that you cna disprove them on the internets, because you are just so god-awful smart and handsome Hurf-durf!


Go fucking kill yourself shithead.

[Alan Bolte]

Er, wasn't that a piece of pipe at the end of a line? Like a giant flail?

[loomer]

In the case of Brashear, it didn't even take off the limb. It ALMOST took it off, and a year or two later he made the doctors amputate because of necrosis and infection. Admitedly, with a little less luck, it might have taken off the limb.

[Molyneux]

BMCM Brashear would disagree. While a natural line or a steel cable won't do it, a synthetic line that gives can easily remove limbs or kill a man.

I've heard it from many a sea-story myself but I've never seen any documented proof.

What are you, fucking retarded? This is a famous real life story - they made a god damn movie about him.

Here's a wild thought fucko - instead of just running around crying bullshit to everything, how about you to your own fucking research? You'd easily turn us several cases of people losing limbs to synthetic line snapping.

But hey, whatever. it's not like the people who work with these lines wouldn't know what the fuck they are doing, and are clearly all horrible liars making up stoiries just so that you cna disprove them on the internets, because you are just so god-awful smart and handsome Hurf-durf!


Go fucking kill yourself shithead.

Hey look, it's someone who can't bother to spell correctly, and apparently has never heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[Molyneux]

Sorry to double-post, but this got cut off.

To whit: Burden of proof is on those who claim something weird can happen. Do your own damn research.

[Broomstick]

The thing I don't like about Mythbusters is that their logic often falls along the lines of "if we can't figure out how to do it, then it's impossible".

Of course, not all of their tests employ this logic, but I've seen quite a few episodes where I couldn't help but think that they should have tried some other ideas.

Then e-mail them and tell them.

When folks come up with alternatives they have been known to re-visit the myth and try the new ideas. There's been at least one show that was nothing but revisiting myth-busting and trying out ideas submitted from outside the show.

[Setesh]

What are you, fucking retarded? This is a famous real life story - they made a god damn movie about him.

Here's a wild thought fucko - instead of just running around crying bullshit to everything, how about you to your own fucking research? You'd easily turn us several cases of people losing limbs to synthetic line snapping.

But hey, whatever. it's not like the people who work with these lines wouldn't know what the fuck they are doing, and are clearly all horrible liars making up stoiries just so that you cna disprove them on the internets, because you are just so god-awful smart and handsome Hurf-durf!

Go fucking kill yourself shithead.

Injure yes, cut in half no. Strangly enough the US Navy keeps records on this sort of thing. They even have a training video "Synthetic Line Snapback".

There are cases of lost arms, hands, and the occasional leg (though usually not cut off by the line just to horribly mangled to save and amputated). But the only cases of someone being cut completely in half involve steel cables.

[Ender]

Hey look, it's someone who can't bother to spell correctly, and apparently has never heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And were it an extraordinary claim instead of a real and routine hazard, you might somewhere have a point buried in there.

But as I also cited one individual there, you don't.

EDIT: You know the moe I look at this the more retarded you fucking look. Seriously, you are pulling a style over substance fallacy in whinning like a little bitch about my spelling, then claiming I provide no evidence when I cite the fucking name of a man.

[Ender]

Injure yes, cut in half no. Strangly enough the US Navy keeps records on this sort of thing. They even have a training video "Synthetic Line Snapback".

Strangly, I might be familiar with that. What with me being a sailor myself and all.

There are cases of lost arms, hands, and the occasional leg (though usually not cut off by the line just to horribly mangled to save and amputated). But the only cases of someone being cut completely in half involve steel cables.

As I recall the opposite is true - that steel cables won't but a synthetic line can. But it has been a while since I've seen the video, I might be switching them.

Irregardless, the risks with linesnapping are very real, and as with their bullet tests, the limited range of what they try it with compared to what is out there day-to-day and thus not an acurate sampling. That's on top of the issues of using a pig carcass.

[Molyneux]

Here's a wild thought fucko - instead of just running around crying bullshit to everything, how about you to your own fucking research? You'd easily turn us several cases of people losing limbs to synthetic line snapping.

As I said - do your own damn research if you want to make claims. Brashear is a case of 'close, but no cigar'.

The myth is CUT IN HALF - not losing limbs, not nearly-losing limbs and having them amputated later from necrosis. Cut in HALF.

[Ender]

Here's a wild thought fucko - instead of just running around crying bullshit to everything, how about you to your own fucking research? You'd easily turn us several cases of people losing limbs to synthetic line snapping.

As I said - do your own damn research if you want to make claims. Brashear is a case of 'close, but no cigar'.

The myth is CUT IN HALF - not losing limbs, not nearly-losing limbs and having them amputated later from necrosis. Cut in HALF.

How about you go learn to fucking read you pile of pus from a diseased cock. I never took issue with the exact threat of cutting people in half, I took issue with them downplaying the overall risk with loss of lives and limbs.

So now we have style over substance, denial of evidence, and strawman. How may more fallacies do you want to go for fluffer-boy?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I believe on the episode they said that a snapping cable would break ribs and cause serious injuries or death, but wouldn't cut. I havn't seen it in a while, but I believe, Ender, they made it seem plenty dangerous.

[Covenant]

I believe on the episode they said that a snapping cable would break ribs and cause serious injuries or death, but wouldn't cut. I havn't seen it in a while, but I believe, Ender, they made it seem plenty dangerous.

Well, at the speeds it was going it could definately kill you. They never made any false claims about just how dangerous this is, but a steel cable just couldn't rip the body in half. Synthetic lines weren't mentioned in the myth, so they weren't tested.

[Molyneux]

Here's a wild thought fucko - instead of just running around crying bullshit to everything, how about you to your own fucking research? You'd easily turn us several cases of people losing limbs to synthetic line snapping.

As I said - do your own damn research if you want to make claims. Brashear is a case of 'close, but no cigar'.

The myth is CUT IN HALF - not losing limbs, not nearly-losing limbs and having them amputated later from necrosis. Cut in HALF.

How about you go learn to fucking read you pile of pus from a diseased cock. I never took issue with the exact threat of cutting people in half, I took issue with them downplaying the overall risk with loss of lives and limbs.

So now we have style over substance, denial of evidence, and strawman. How may more fallacies do you want to go for fluffer-boy?

Ooh, look who knows the big words and the gay jokes.

If I see incorrect spelling I correct it, regardless of the content. Simple as that.

The original mythbusters myth was whether or not a snapping cable can cut a person IN HALF.

after making inquiries with almost every safety organization imaginable, the MythBusters were unable to find any concrete evidence of a person being cut in half by a snapped cable.

BMCM Brashear would disagree. While a natural line or a steel cable won't do it, a synthetic line that gives can easily remove limbs or kill a man.

You directly replied to the myth; you somehow ignored the fact that the actual QUESTION was regarding cutting in half, not removal of limbs or fatal injury.

In the episode ITSELF, the Mythbusters baldly stated that a snapping cable could definitely cause serious injury or death; however, that was outside the scope of the myth they were testing.

Maybe if you'd learn to read the OP, you wouldn't have to resort to name-calling over substance.

[Ender]

As I said - do your own damn research if you want to make claims. Brashear is a case of 'close, but no cigar'.

The myth is CUT IN HALF - not losing limbs, not nearly-losing limbs and having them amputated later from necrosis. Cut in HALF.

How about you go learn to fucking read you pile of pus from a diseased cock. I never took issue with the exact threat of cutting people in half, I took issue with them downplaying the overall risk with loss of lives and limbs.

So now we have style over substance, denial of evidence, and strawman. How may more fallacies do you want to go for fluffer-boy?

Ooh, look who knows the big words and the gay jokes.

As oppossed to being someone unfit to shine the shoes of a halfwit whose only contribution is to whine and cry about spelling?

Though I will grant that, upon looking it up, I did confuse the terms fluffer and felcher. Both remain stations in life far above what you could hope to achieve however. It's notable that you automatically assumed when I insulted you, I was treating being homosexual as an insult. Which is really funny since fluffers can be male or female, work on both, and work on straight or gay porn sets. It follows that since you think a gender neutral term for someone in the sex industry being used as an insult towards you automatically means it must be gay, that you think being termed a homosexual is in and of itself an insult.

I don't want to clutter the thread here, but I'm certain a mod could split it off, so please explain what exactly you think is so insulting about being a homosexual?

If I see incorrect spelling I correct it, regardless of the content. Simple as that.

And go after it rather then what was actually said, a bannable offense here, yes.

The original mythbusters myth was whether or not a snapping cable can cut a person IN HALF.

You directly replied to the myth; you somehow ignored the fact that the actual QUESTION was regarding cutting in half, not removal of limbs or fatal injury.

And you chose to ignore what I actually said. And now you backpedal.

Maybe if you'd learn to read the OP, you wouldn't have to resort to name-calling over substance.

Maybe if you would read what was actually said, you would be able to contribute something more meaningful to the thread then crying over spelling and names.

[Molyneux]

How about you go learn to fucking read you pile of pus from a diseased cock. I never took issue with the exact threat of cutting people in half, I took issue with them downplaying the overall risk with loss of lives and limbs.

So now we have style over substance, denial of evidence, and strawman. How may more fallacies do you want to go for fluffer-boy?

Ooh, look who knows the big words and the gay jokes.

As oppossed to being someone unfit to shine the shoes of a halfwit whose only contribution is to whine and cry about spelling?

Though I will grant that, upon looking it up, I did confuse the terms fluffer and felcher. Both remain stations in life far above what you could hope to achieve however. It's notable that you automatically assumed when I insulted you, I was treating being homosexual as an insult. Which is really funny since fluffers can be male or female, work on both, and work on straight or gay porn sets. It follows that since you think a gender neutral term for someone in the sex industry being used as an insult towards you automatically means it must be gay, that you think being termed a homosexual is in and of itself an insult.

I don't want to clutter the thread here, but I'm certain a mod could split it off, so please explain what exactly you think is so insulting about being a homosexual?

If I see incorrect spelling I correct it, regardless of the content. Simple as that.

And go after it rather then what was actually said, a bannable offense here, yes.

The original mythbusters myth was whether or not a snapping cable can cut a person IN HALF.

You directly replied to the myth; you somehow ignored the fact that the actual QUESTION was regarding cutting in half, not removal of limbs or fatal injury.

And you chose to ignore what I actually said. And now you backpedal.

Maybe if you'd learn to read the OP, you wouldn't have to resort to name-calling over substance.

Maybe if you would read what was actually said, you would be able to contribute something more meaningful to the thread then crying over spelling and names.

So essentially, you forget what you previously said, you lack the ability to read your own posts quoted back at you, and you focus on one-off comments with vague threats of banning to the exclusion of the actual debate. Real winning traits you have, there.

And regarding the actual point on which I FIRST posted, where you told someone in fairly strong language to look up the references for the claim YOU made:

If you are asked for evidence to support a claim you've made, you should either produce this evidence or concede the point until such time as you can produce this evidence. People who consistently ignore requests for evidence to support their claims (particularly contentious claims) are not looked upon kindly here.

And finally, in regards to your laughable contention that I am homophobic: I am a bisexual male. That means that I like the rooster. I assumed that you intended a reference to homosexuality as an insult largely because that's the context that it's generally USED in by inbred, peanut-brained, shit-spewing retards.

[Ender]

double post

[Ender]

So essentially, you forget what you previously said,

No, I actually remembered exactly what I said, it was you who started ranting and raving about people being cut in half, not me.

you lack the ability to read your own posts quoted back at you,

The one where it showed you were strawmanning me?

and you focus on one-off comments with vague threats of banning to the exclusion of the actual debate. Real winning traits you have, there.

How can I threaten to ban you since I lack the authority to do so? All I did was point out that you were violating the rules. I'd further point out that if you check the senate, I've criticized other for trying to get others banned when that is the job of the mods.

And regarding the actual point on which I FIRST posted, where you told someone in fairly strong language

Still bitching and crying over nasty and misspelled words instead of actual points I see.

to look up the references for the claim YOU made:

If you are asked for evidence to support a claim you've made, you should either produce this evidence or concede the point until such time as you can produce this evidence. People who consistently ignore requests for evidence to support their claims (particularly contentious claims) are not looked upon kindly here.

And had that been what occured, I'd agree. But it wasn't. Instead of asking for more information or clarification the fuckwit simply declared I had not provided evidence, despite the fact I cited a well known case. Denial of evidence, while not explicetly spelt out in the rules, used to be one of the most common sources of banning we had here.

And finally, in regards to your laughable contention that I am homophobic: I am a bisexual male. That means that I like the rooster. I assumed that you intended a reference to homosexuality as an insult largely because that's the context that it's generally USED in by inbred, peanut-brained, shit-spewing retards.

I appreciate the clarification, even as I note you can't meet your own standards about "strong language"

[Stile]

And had that been what occured, I'd agree. But it wasn't. Instead of asking for more information or clarification the fuckwit simply declared I had not provided evidence, despite the fact I cited a well known case. Denial of evidence, while not explicetly spelt out in the rules, used to be one of the most common sources of banning we had here.

Fine, I concede.

Go and fight with Molyneaux about it, I don't give a fuck.

And by the way, I was a Sailor also.