Re: ring the bell (Was Re: Brothers and Sisters ... Ayh have THE ANSWER (Touch the screen with me))

[Steve Ames <steve>]

> > Hmmmm...I think the original question was still valid.  They are immobile
> > by itself is not clear.  Maybe it is to you, but us engineering and
> > physics types are big into relativity :)
> >
>
> Well, Yeeeeeeehhhhaaa Doggie!  Wut wuz ah thinkin'?  Aw wuzzunt reedin'
> y'all's posts!  Been a Journalism type, ah wuz jist copy editin' 'em.

Shucks John... you must have missed that litle sideways smiley thing
that might have suggested sarcasm.

> Oh, and if you would like to recreationally discuss the theoretical
> applications of time dialation, please let me know.  Oh, silly me, did I
> mention I came here, years ago to study physics?  What WAS I thinking.

Well hey, I guess you just raised the bar on what we should be expecting
from you.

> Blue fields can't happen.  Energy and matter are neither created nor
> destroyed, merely transformed (now where did I get that theory?).  As
> such, to go from having mass to having no mass (immaterial) would require
> a (likely exothermic) release of energy.  As no such expendature occurs,
> save a faint blue glow (bonus points for determining the candlepower of a 
> formerly 1 kg target), blue fields don't happen.

Incorrect. Old math and such. Matter is not being destroyed here. Nor is
it being transformed.

> Oh, but wait, it's MAGIC in a GAME.

Both true.

> > A couple of your statements might have been a little biased and appear to
> > be your opinion. 
>
> You think?

You forgot the sarcasm smiley. :) <-ob_sarcasm_smiley

> Now, seeing they changed from 1 to 2 indicates that the way they were was
> unsatisfactory.
> As they then changed, within a week or two, to their current mechanism,
> indicates 1) the immobility was satisfactory, 2) the immatterial aspect
> was more desirable than the matterial aspect.

More desirable by whom? I recall expressing my opinion before they
were moved to Type 2 fields. My opinion was "that change would open
much abuse". The change was made anyway. *shrug*

No we move with the benefit of hearing out whole arguments. Your suggesting
that something is more desirable just because it was done is a fallacy.

> The progression indicates they were evaluated twice, and the current
> incarnation is, SO FAR, the most desirable to those doing the evaluating.
> Now, if someone want's mobile blue fields, propose them.  If someone wants
> material blue fields, propose them.

No one is suggesting a rule change just a clarification on what "immobile"
means. 

						-Steve