Question about stretching rubber on blade

dajdosta said:

"If I stretch it the rubber will be harder and faster.
If I don't stretch it the rubber will be softer and have more spin."

I am having a hard time understanding how one can interpret this in multiple ways.

Can you please write again those multiple meanings to this that you found?

Click to expand...

Attitude said:

Yeah, who never heard of "fast contact times" instead of... i dunno - maybe "short contact time"?! Oh wait, but he never said something about anything being short.
At this point it has gotten pretty hilarious. As ive said before it is utmost ridiculous to think Dima would talk about "fast contact times" in any context possible and it doesnt make sense. But keep on believing and have your open mind, though it doesnt have any benefit for this thread either way.

I guess NDH pretty much summed it up so im out before im gonna lose more braincells reading more of... that.

Click to expand...

Sure, have fun. And just so you know, you got it wrong there, I said "fast" can be used to describe "contact time", I didn't say "fast contact time", there's a difference. Since speed is a function of distance over time, faster means v' > v or s'/t' > s/t. The problem here is the distance, is the distance before or after the ball left the rubber?

Also please remember what NDH said in his post, "there are definitely occasions where his use of English is not particularly clear", and remember that English is a second language for Ovtcharov. So are you saying that there's not the slightest chance he could be saying something other than what you think it is?

Ahh I forgot, you are not reading more of this so I guess there's no point saying anything to you here.

DukeGaGa said:

You can't see it because you don't have an open mind, or in other words, too stubborn. I'm saying fast can be used to describe ball speed, and it can also be used to describe contact time, are you so stubborn that can't even acknowledge that? But anyways, for the full detail, you can just read my previous posts.

Click to expand...

These are exact quotes of yours:
Post #21
"...since he's comparing spinnier to faster..."
Post #25
"So in his mind "harder" is comparing to "softer", which is pretty obvious, and "faster" is used to compare with "spin"."
Post #27
"And in your example, if slower can be omitted, why not softer as well, isn't that just as obvious if not even more? Just say "stretching makes it faster, without stretching is spinnier", but he didn't, he specifically chose the words "harder and faster" vs "softer and more spin", so if harder is a direct comparison to softer, why isn't faster a direct comparison to more spin?"

You started this argument by stating multiple times that he (Ovtcharov) was comparing faster and spinnier as can be seen from these three posts of yours.
You are putting words in his mouth.
He never said something like that and only you (I hope) can misinterpret that simple statement.
I explained to you in post #26 why that reasoning of yours doesn't make sense. But you continued your nonsensical conclusions in the next post #27.
And now you are trying to steer away argument from that "faster vs spinnier" nonsense of yours that you falsely claimed Ovtcharov said.

dajdosta said:

These are exact quotes of yours:
Post #21
"...since he's comparing spinnier to faster..."
Post #25
"So in his mind "harder" is comparing to "softer", which is pretty obvious, and "faster" is used to compare with "spin"."
Post #27
"And in your example, if slower can be omitted, why not softer as well, isn't that just as obvious if not even more? Just say "stretching makes it faster, without stretching is spinnier", but he didn't, he specifically chose the words "harder and faster" vs "softer and more spin", so if harder is a direct comparison to softer, why isn't faster a direct comparison to more spin?"

You started this argument by stating multiple times that he (Ovtcharov) was comparing faster and spinnier as can be seen from these three posts of yours.
You are putting words in his mouth.
He never said something like that and only you (I hope) can misinterpret that simple statement.
I explained to you in post #26 why that reasoning of yours doesn't make sense. But you continued your nonsensical conclusions in the next post #27.
And now you are trying to steer away argument from that "faster vs spinnier" nonsense of yours that you falsely claimed Ovtcharov said.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm not trying to steer away from anything, it's you that is steering away with your stubbornness. And I did not put words in anyone's mouth. I'm speculating using common knowledge and logic for comparing things:

• make a list of properties of A
• list the same properties of B
• compare the list

• you make a list of properties of A
• you make a different list of properties of B
• you compare

Kolev said:

The OP question was pretty straight forward. There isn't much to discuss. Some ppl understand the subject, some will never do ......and btw Dima's English is clear enough for most, although it certainly lacks that distinguish posh nuance.

Click to expand...

Sure, since it's so straight forward, then what's your take on it, and how are you proving what you said is true?

DukeGaGa said:

Oh I'm not trying to steer away from anything, it's you that is steering away with your stubbornness. And I did not put words in anyone's mouth. I'm speculating using common knowledge and logic for comparing things:

• make a list of properties of A
• list the same properties of B
• compare the list

Simple as that.

And what about post #26, all you said is this is how you compare things:

• you make a list of properties of A
• you make a different list of properties of B
• you compare

I disagree that's the normal or logical way of comparing things.

Click to expand...

Am I allowed to share this posts to my friends (I am not sure about copyrights on internet forums these days)?

My daughter goes to 3rd grade of primary school (10 years old) and I am pretty sure they were solving tasks like these in the 2nd grade:

"If Alice does her homework she gets a candy from her parents. If Alice doesn't do her homework she will have more time to play.
Answer the question: If Alice doesn't do her homework will she get a candy?"

I am pretty sure most of the 9 year olds can solve this.

dajdosta said:

Am I allowed to share this posts to my friends (I am not sure about copyrights on internet forums these days)?

My daughter goes to 3rd grade of primary school (10 years old) and I am pretty sure they were solving tasks like these in the 2nd grade:

"If Alice does her homework she gets a candy from her parents. If Alice doesn't do her homework she will have more time to play.
Answer the question: If Alice doesn't do her homework will she get a candy?"

I am pretty sure most of the 9 year olds can solve this.

Click to expand...

Here comes the gibberish again, I guess that's how you defend yourself when there's no logic behind your comments then. We were talking about comparing the change of multiple properties, after changing a certain aspect of an object. And you get your candy homework story from that? No wonder you're talking nonsense and so stubborn.

DukeGaGa said:

Here comes the gibberish again, I guess that's how you defend yourself when there's no logic behind your comments then. We were talking about comparing the change of multiple properties, after changing a certain aspect of an object. And you get your candy homework story from that? No wonder you're talking nonsense and so stubborn.

Click to expand...

So you don't know the answer? Did Alice get her candy? 😁

dajdosta said:

So you don't know the answer? Did Alice get her candy? 😁

Click to expand...

Did you get the candy?