Face it guys. It's hopeless. AC has somehow convinced himself of this fallacy and is unwilling to consider he might be wrong.

I have this question though. If recoil doesn't happen until after the bullet exits, how can the pressure/time curve be relevant to recoil?

AC,
I proved your arguement to be specious without bothering with "math"...

Or, to use YOUR "divid by two and that's close"... perform a /2 infinitely and ALL answers approach the same answer...

which is exactly the value of your approach of "recoil"

jeffe

Assclown, Newton's second law speaks to force.
His first law describes inertia, and his third
momentum reaction.
I would recomend a little study on your part.
Good Luck!

Ass Clown, I see you ignored my post completely. So let's simplify it a tad, and see what you think would happen here:

You have a bullet that weighs 180 gr in a special casing that weighs 180 gr. Said casing is thick enough to contain the pressure of the explosion, and it is detonated by a timed primer, so as not to impart any directional force upon the system.

Set the assembly on the concrete in front of your feet, facing it to your right and left. Wait for the explosion. Will the bullet shoot quickly to your left, as the casing remains in front of your feet?

Guys, let it go. AC seems to thrive on the attention he gets from threads like this.

Don't feed the strays and they will quit bothering you.

Why, I ask myself, did I let myself get sucked into this black hole anyway!?!?

Assclown;
When Newton spoke of "action force, and reaction force" what did he mean other than
Impulse equals momentum?.
This is my last post on this, I only got in too it because I was afrais that some poor soul would believe you. There is already enough ignorance in the world.
Good luck1

I am disgusted with the erroneous bickering AC has to put up with here.

Why the flames over some math?
It obviously has something to do with human nature.

I have written a bunch of math this week in sent it to many engineers in emails this week for work, as I suspect AC has, and things get designed, built, shipped, and work, all without some flame war.

I think that it is not like work, here in the internet, but more like a family reunion where someone always gets drunk and acts as a spoiler.
But there are half a dozen drunk spoilers here.
Why do humans suddenly act the role of a spoiler?
It happens when they feel left out and jealous.

I am beginning to loose faith in the forum system and thinking maybe writing a book to reduce feed back from spoilers is a better way for dealing with guns as science and engineering.



--
Be careful what you pray for, it can happen.

I have seen films of pistols that were in rearward and upward movement before bullets exited. In a heavier rifle or cannon the movement will not be as perceptable to a camera.
So you want to say that all recoil is muzzle blast or jet effect, that the bullet movement is no a factor.Well you want to experiment,
use a 12 ga, with a real lightweight load of shot in a shotcup at 200 gr, and compare it with 2 oz 0f shot.Load lighter so it has about same muzzle blast as heavier and compare recoil.
You will see a huge difference which is only attributed to load weight moving and the gun moving in reaction, from the time load starts moving, For if it was only jet effect after the load was out of barrel, as you say, bullet wt
affecting movement from ignition that I say
happens, wouldn't be a factor.Take the 3006
recoil energy math and figure in a 200 lb gun, IE, that is the only time I agree with you
about gun not starting to recoil, when bullet starts moving.Hahhahaha,

AC, you wany a proof:

I1. We have an object in space which is not being acted upon by any forces. It shall be called a rifle for the remainder of this discussion. It is as if it is floating in space with only atmospheric pressures acting uniformly on every surface. It is therefore free to move in any direction when acted upon by any net force.

I2. The parts of the rifle consisting of the breech bolt, receiver, barrel, stock, and other associated inert parts are locked into a rigid unit such that any force upon any part will effect the entire rifle as a whole unit.

I3. The rifle contains a quantity of smokeless powder and a bullet in their traditional locations whereupon the rifle would be called 'loaded and ready to fire'. This combination of the rifle, powder, and bullet shall be called the system.

I4. The rifle is fired, and we begin our examination during an instant of time during the firing process when:
A. The powder has begun to burn and build up pressure.
B. The bullet has begin to move down the barrel under the influence of this pressure.
C. The bullet has NOT exited the muzzle.

I5. Time is frozen at this instant, and analysis of the system begins.


A1. The powder is burning, creating a high pressure gas (many times higher that atmospheric pressure), which is pushing outward in all directions. It is contained within a volume bounded by the rifle 'barrel', the rifle 'bolt', and the 'bullet'.

A2. The rifle barrel is containing all of this pressure in the radial directions to the length of the barrel. The net forces on the system from this are ZERO.

A3. The combustion gas pressure (called 'gas' for the remainder of this discussion) pressing against the bullet exerts a net force upon it, due to the fact that the bullet has atmospheric pressure in front and high pressure to its rear.

A4. The only forces on the bullet able to resist motion are the atmospheric pressure in front of it and friction with the barrel.

A5. The gas pressure is high enough to overcome all forces in A4.

A7. The net force on the bullet causes it to move forward.

PAY ATTENTION, THIS GETS TRICKY!

A8. The gas pressure creates a force on the bolt. The bolt, being a rigidly attached part of the rifle (at this instant of time), transfers this force to the rifle.

A9. There is no force available to counteract the force in A8.

A10. An object with finite mass under the influence of a net force (not in equilibrium with other forces) will be set into motion.

Conclusion:
The rifle will begin to move when the bullet begins to move down the barrel. This motion is usually called 'recoil'. In normal situations, we do not have a rifle in a vacuum, it is held by a shooter with the butt of the stock firmly placed against their shoulder. This shoulder is normally used to provide a force counteracting A8. The sensation a shooter feels while they do this is called 'felt recoil'.

Feel free to use the convenient numbering scheme to illustrate to me the error of my ways, point by point.

I know AC won't do so, he has not to this point debunked any other valid criticisms put up against his thoery...just ranted and called names. And how he got an otherwise poster usually gifted with good practical common sense to defend him is beyond me!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
F6hawk,

That is an irrelevant example. It is NOT a variable volume pressure vessel. It is a "bottle rocket". By the way, a blank cartridge will do the same thing. A firearm is a variable volume pressure vessel! Do you understand this relatively simple concept?

ASS_CLOWN

No, it is not irrelevant. It is the most basic type of reaction to visualize. The answer to my quesiton, which you did not provide, is that the bullet goes one way, the casing the opposite, at the same rate. Assuming that both have the same coefficient of drag, and (as stated) the same mass, they will both end up a distance X away from the origin. This is because the forces are equal and opposite, right?

The same thing applies to a round fired from a firearm, the rearward motion of the rifle is instantaneous to ignition, it just appears to be imperceptible due to the mass of the rifle (plus shoulder & hand & arm pushing on it) being so much greater than the round. See my first post for a comparison of the numbers.

Hope this helps you understand it better than you do now,
F6

AC wrote------

quote:

The force acting/reacted to on the locking lugs is the same as the force acting upon the BASE of the bullet.

And the same happens to both depending on their mass, IE bullet move and at same instant
of the powder exploding, gun moves. Gun doesn't move as much or as fast, as it is many times heavier, and if gun is heavy enough like the 200 lb 3006 rifle that
I mentioned above, the powder load doesn't have enough power to move gun giving it recoil energy.It has to move to have that energy.
Now when I accidently shot the knockout
rod out of my 458HE, it being many times heavier
than bullet alone, it recoiled upward befor rod came out and the rod hit the top half of backstop 2 ft up from where the bullets were normally going, as they went over chrono.
There was a load that would have gave real visible pictures for a camera monitoring the
recoil action, like the ones I've seen of pistols, only exagerated in that instance.
My gun was on tripod and butt rested on bag,
the same for every shot, and with 1/2 lb
projectile, it exagerated movement, and that
is why I know what gun does on the instant of firing.

quote:

The locking lug races react against this force. IF what you are saying were true the bolt would push back until it came into contact with the shooter.

You truely do not understand how a firearm works.

READ I2 again! The bolt is locked to the receiver. The receiver had WHAT holding it in place? Expand your analysis. Note that my analysis is of the WHOLE RIFLE, not just the bolt! We are (or were) talking about the recoil felt by a shooter, right?

The bolt pushes against the receiver. The receiver resists, by transfering the force to the stock. The stock resists but transfers the force to the shoulder of the shooter. If you are truely unable to see this, you are incompetant to analyze a firearm.

I truely hope you are just being stubborn...no one likes to see their work shredded...but wrong is wrong.

Oh, I work for an engineering firm specializing in the petrochemical industry. Don't go near anything having to do with petroleum products! I ran my proof by a licensced professional Civil engineer...you know, bridges and such...he agreed that I am correct. You might want to watch out driving over bridges too.

It is time for a standard engineering joke.
It is the story of the man with the B.O. personality. At parties, he would join a group, but the group would quickly disband. Then one day, his luck changed and groups formed around him with everyone laughing and having a good time. Another engineer, who was observant, took Mr. B.O. aside and asked what had changed.
""When ever anyone says anything, I say, "Fantastic!""
The interviewer quipped, "Oh, I dunno, that sounds like Bull $hit to me."
"NO! that's what I USED TO SAY", responded B.O.


It seems to me there are some spoilers here with un repentant B.O. personalities.

--
Be careful what you pray for, it can happen.

Geo45-70, I have a quick question for you. I am spending the winter in your fair state from Maine and have seen a few deer[dead and alive] around the Pensacola area. My question is do you hunt deer in Fl. or out of state? I noticed that you say you hunt with a 375 H&H. Any deer around here would be compleatly disembowled by anything bigger then a 30-30. I have a Gorden Setter that is as big as most of the deer that I have seen in the 3 months that I have been here. Don't take me serious, I am just doing a bit of leg pulling, but they are small deer.

Recoil has two components One is the jet effect
comprised of air ahead of bullet pushing out
and jet effect of powder blast after bullet is out.......Two is the force of the explosion
acting against the breech. Which starts the
gun recoiling as soon as the explosion starts.
Suppoise you had two steel blocks with identical
depression in them, put them together withpowder
in between and touched it off. They both will
move, Make one twice as heavy,by setting
another block behind(representing heavier gun), it will move less
but still will move, and so on.Same thing in
a gun, only the gun has a lot more multiples
of bullet wt.And in the example above if you added a block on the bullet side, so to speak
they would move same again. That is why heavier
bullets cause more recoil. even if loaded to the same muzzle energy...IE, the bullets
act like a backstop,movable of course, to resist explosion thus putting force against breech, and heavier bullets resist more thus
incrasing recoil.That is another proof that
gun starts moving when ignition starts bullet moving, as that is part of the recoil.

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
CDH,

quote:

The bolt pushes against the receiver. The receiver resists, by transfering the force to the stock. The stock resists but transfers the force to the shoulder of the shooter. If you are truely unable to see this, you are incompetant to analyze a firearm.

With all due respect, you sir are incompetent to analyze a firearm.

talk about the pot calling the kettle black...



The net forces acting on the LOCKED breech are ZERO! This is why the breech is LOCKED! If your argument were true we would not have a LOCKED breech.


funny, and here I thought there was strss fransfered to the action via the bolt... seems AC said that... so, then consider the action as one piece, of uncertified mechcanic


By the way, in a direct blow-back action your statements would be correct. They are not however correct for any LOCKED breech fired weapon.


locked breech... then the bolt is part of the receiver.. therefore the face that holds the bullet is part of the receiver (as it's a bolt locked in).... or are you saying that it's automagically transfererd?

Now enough of this crap.

oh why? because you are dangerouly close to having nothing left to retort but to froth at the mouth?

I suggest you stick to your process engineering.
and leave making crap up to AC



I am a profession mechanic, without ASE certification,

and an engineer dealing in microns, and a german engineer, and a lathe operator, and a wafflehouse waitress.


I am most definitely more qualified to discuss this topic than a Chemical Engineer shows hat you don't have a clue as to how an engineer is trained.. you might go get that certification... (


You really need to study/work with engines, suspension/chassis, and gear trains.


to know how to work on guns??? wtf

Very few if any of the solutions in these areas are intuitively obvious.

ASS_CLOWN

g, ac... once again, start spouting your bs when pused on facts...


so, what sort of mechcanic would say an alloy of steel CANT take 45-80 ft/lb? one that's never seen a torque wrench, i expect

jeffe

AC, you really believe yourself, don't you!?!?

Answer me one just thing then...where does the force that the lugs bear on the receiver lug recesses go?

Hint...it does NOT magically disappear.

b beyer

The hunt club I belong to is in By God West Virginia. The further south you go the smaller the deer get - Key deer are the size of dogs. My cousin in Bangor Maine hunts those big deer called MOOSE.

Why the 375 HH and a No 1 - I used to hunt with a bolt action 308 - pretty boring and I'd sometimes have to track a shot deer. I'm left handed so I really don't like right handed bolt actions and I do love Ruger No 1s. The 375 HH loaded with a 200 gr Sierra flat point punches a good hole through deer. Field dressing the deer is relatively easy - nothing north of the diaphram except for a partial windpipe. Even without a heart or lungs a buck will still jump and run 30 yards.

quote:

quote:
where does the force that the lugs bear on the receiver lug recesses go?

Hint...it does NOT magically disappear.



The force becomes elastic strain.

ROTFLMAO!

Elastic strain! Who knew that elastic strain could appear from a one directional single force acting on a body free to move in space...WITHOUT INDUCING MOTION!

Move over Newton, here comes ASS_CLOWN!

BTW, A SCUBA tank is not a valid comparison because no part of it is free to move (as in a bullet/rifle combination).

For grins, try your analysis on a simple muzzleloader, a single pipe with a cap on one end, no bolt, stock, receiver, etc. and what's left to strain?

ROTFLMAO again! Bye now!

Scott- your denser than that scuba tank.
Tank under pressure is just stationary.
Suppose had tube on end of tank with projectile
in it and popped valve open. Projectile would take of at instant there was pressure or force
and so would the tank at the same instant, in opposite direction in reaction.
Lets then say we took barrel open on both ends
and put two bullets in it and put high pressure air between them or gun powder ignited. they would both be pushed out the oppsite ends.
IE, they move due to force applied.Lets take one and anchor to barrel(it becomes a breech) , and then the one
loose would move in barrel, the one anchored trying to move would transfer its energy to barrel and barrel would move a little, starting when the explosion started the bullet to move.
Unless the barrel wa so heavy that there was not enough powder energy involved to move it,
like the 200 lb 3006 example I gave above.
In a 3006 a 150 gr bullet at 3000 gives 3000
ft lbs enegy, and in 10 lb gun, 16 ft lbs recoil
energy.A 220 gr bullet at 2500 fps give 3000
ft lbs energy, but in 10 lb gun has 21 ft
lbs recoil energy.That is proof that gun
acts as a reaction object to bullet and the heavier bullet cause gun to have more reaction.
Proof that the gun is starting to move when
bullet starts to move due to force pushing them apart.

Ok, Ass, one last attempt to help your uncertified, no-spelling ability self to get a grasp...

If you put a stainless steel rod down the barrel, and it is .002" diameter less than the barrel, and you put one end of said rod against the bullet, and the other against a wall, is there any recoil prior to the bullet leaving the muzzle?

Of course there is. And since there is more mass in front of the bullet (the wall via the SS rod) than behind it (your shoulder, the LOCKED bolt, etc.), guess what? You now become "Knocked on your arse Ass_Clown".

Keep up the good work,
F6

Geo45-70, Has your cousin been lucky enough to have gotten a permit to shoot a moose? I have been putting in for one since they started it and still have not been lucky enough to get drawn. I have been fortunate in that I have had a source of some GREAT steaks over the years, and as far as I am concerned moose is the only thing worth shooting for meat, as ugly and as big as they get, they sure are tasty. Bob

All of this doesn't answer the question "How many angels are dancing on the bullet nose". Everyone knows that the more angels, the more recoil!! Just a lighten up attempt!!

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:

The force becomes elastic strain.

ASS_CLOWN

And those 'strain forces' are dissipated where...?

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
=1.) How is the force distributed through the threads holding a regulator into a SCUBA tank? Hint: IN EXACTLY THE SAME MANNER AS THE LOCKED BREECH OF A RIFLE.

ASS_CLOWN

Idijit...
your scuba tank has no explosion behind it...a flawed example, as you are then taking a snapshot of a partial system. as usual, totally specious, ...

now if you want to take the WHOLE example, include the energy is in the compressor.. you know, like your specialty it a mechanics job...

if you were dumb enough to shot an end of said scuba take, it would either EXPLODE or jet away..


hmm, explode or jet away...

I wonder how that applies to a rifle??

no, wait... if the gas makes it out in a coupled fashion, it'nt that EXACTLY like a rifle?? jetting away from direction of gas travel...

or it explodes (heh)


Now ac will come back and try to whine that I didn't do the math...

jeffe

AC wrote-----

"It is there (bullet induced recoil), you were right, but it is very small for most shoulder held RIFLES."

Hotdamn, progress.And even though the amount
of energy of the explosion transfered to gun is smaller in relationship to what is transfered to bullet, it is still a component of gun recoil.And gets greater as bullet gets heavier.Like a 458 Lott, 10 lb gun, 500gr bullet,
bullet 1/140 wt of gun, at 2300 fps recoil is
84 ft lbs. Use 1000 gr bullet, bullet 1/70 wt
of gun, to same muzzle energy, at 1740 fps(possible with right powders and a bore rider bullet)
and recoil energy is 156 ft lbs.Now back to the effect on shooter, the heavier recoil of the two will be about half the difference between the two, in comparison.

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
Now I leave this discussion for good. Others have suggested I have waited far too much time discussing this simple concept already.

ASS_CLOWN

Yeah yeah.. if we say "yeah scottyboy, you are right" will you go away?

Ass Clown is SO right... yes indeed he's right... the bullet doesn't accelerate through the bore, and as a result, doesn't generate a rearward thrust during the process.

It doesn't achieve several thousand fps, nor several thousand pounds of muzzle energy (kinetic energy/momentum) BEFORE it leaves the muzzle, that happens AFTER.

It's actually quite easy... the 'rocket effect' of the gases as they leave the muzzle is what actually accelerates the bullet, and this all happens outside the barrel.

Ergo, any and all energy generated occurs outside the barrel, therefore, recoil can ONLY be generated by the rocket effect of gases exiting the barrel.

So simple, I wonder why none of us recognised this before...

Newton's Laws of motion apply to pretty much everything except rifles, and it took A_C to show us... he should be congratulated... and perhaps awarded the Nobel Prize for advances in Physics...

Most people call this process (in the real world) peer review. Clark and AC don't seem to understand or accept this. Oh well.

The only thing AC has managed to do here is out-stubborn the rest of us. Sorta reminds me of a few girlfriends I had in years past...didn't matter how many people showed the error in how many ways, simply by not admitting to anything they could win ANY argument.

I'm with Jeffe on this...what can we say to make this end and go away...

CDH, you are so right... my ex was/is exactly like that - 'out-stubborn your opponent' - what a catch phrase...

AC-You cheated in your math--Ed.

AC- Your goofy-First you didn't use cosine figure to figure amount of thrust from
powder.2nd- In example there isn't all the powder left at the muzzle.3rd-Vector and
differential analysis in this exercise has to treat the movement of gun weight, versus
the movement of the bullet and powder wt.
With friction figured in and an average pressure working between the two applying
foce to make gun move and bullet move...4th-That makes one component of the recoil. 5th- the jet effect of the powder pushing against gun after the bullet is out of barrel is other component.
6th-Say average
pressure between bullet and gun is 25k,
multiplied times
the area of bore,times the time it is applied,minus the amount needed to overcome friction betwwen gun and bullet, denotes the force, generated by that pressure, applied to the gun to get it accelerated while bullet
is in barrel. Friction will soak up 10k of
the energy by dragging against gun, leaving 15k of the 25k average, to move
gun and bullet apart.
At muzzle for jet effect the average pressure
is say 5k during the time it pushes against bore, times bore area, times the time it works on the bore, which denotes the amount
that jet effect accelerates gun.
Last-Which has greatest pressure and
the greastest amount of time to apply it as a force
to get gun moving? BULLET IN THE BORE.That is
why in my example above a 1000gr 458 bullet had
about 85% more recoil than the 500 gr.
IE, as bullet wt approaches gun wt, recoil
increases due to the fact that largest part of recoil is induced while bullet is in barrel.
With your math and a cosine table and tell me what happens if bullet wt doubles like example above.........and the on top of that you cut gun wt in half with twice as heavy bullet......And so on.........and more
interestingly you carried out this process until....... the gun and projectile weigh the
same!!!!

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
Ed,

quote:

AC-You cheated in your math--Ed.

How so? I didn't cheat in my math, I just don't think like the correct answer.

Rugeruser needs to learn to read.

quote:

the bullet doesn't accelerate through the bore

Where did you get that inaccuracy from?

Pathetic, truly pathetic.

ASS_CLOWN

A-C - you wrote:

"Recoil doesn't happen until the bullet leaves and the high pressure gases REACT against the atmosphere.
ASS_CLOWN"

I think it is you who needs to remember what you have written... it's obviously beyond you to sustain a logical argument.

Ed,

Friction has nothing to do with the Cosine values.

My analysis is correct and can be substantiated by a correct and thorough analysis of ALL the forces at work in the COMPLETE rifle system.

Anyway, I have deleted all the scary truth in the previous posts!

You guys are SOOOOOO MUCH smarter than me! Now do you ALL feel better about yourselves? Remember I am a simple (read stupid) uncertified mechanic (this fact alone should help you all feel better about yourselves).

ASS_CLOWN

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
This is it I really must stop. You have all flunked and must repeat the course.

ASS_CLOWN

and here just a day or so ago you swore

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
Now I leave this discussion for good. Others have suggested I have waited far too much time discussing this simple concept already.

ASS_CLOWN

But, i will tell you the BEST ass-inine statement so far

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
Believe me Ed, in a RIFLE (that is a key word now) the bullet pushes the barrel forward, counterbalancing the rearward thrust of the gases on the locked breech.

Although this one is the closest to a factual statement the troll has ever said

quote:

Originally posted by ASS_CLOWN:
This has BEEN my story, it is my story, and it will be my story. I will not change my story, and I am sticking to my story.

and the subtext there is "regardless of facts otherwise, i have already made up my mind and counted to 3"


Go buy some rifles, scotty, if you parole officer will let you, and shoot them... rather than mentally masterbate over your "story"

jeffe

AC = (Yu.. Me..) The new math.

Has any one inlarged assclowns little picture from his profile?

The Guy is holding a rifle in one hand and a gallon bottle of Jack Danials whiskey in the other hand.

His old picture , he was sitting slouched in a chair holding a rifle and a half empty bottle of Jack Danials on the floor.

Ass Clown has a MAJOR inferiority complex...

However his posts are good fun to read, much like those stories about how 4 year old kids make 'sense' of their worlds...

A_C, keep 'em coming mate, your posts help lighten up some otherwise boring nights...

quote:

this is taken from Robert Rinker's book "Understanding Firearm Ballistics" any mistakes are mine.

"The foot pound is the unit of measure for the kinetic energy of recoil. "

Formulas .....

kinetic energy = 1/2 mass x (velocity)^2

now it gets interesting ..... (my words)

the main equation for recoil is ...

MG * VG = C + MB * BV
where ...
MG = mass of the gun
VG = velocity of the gun
C = velocity of the powder charge as it leaves the muzzle
MB = mass of the bullet
BV = velocity of the bullet

free recoil is the term used for the energy developed and used in the recoil of the gun itself. Free recoil velocity is only the gun and as if it was hanging by a string and permitted to swing freely.
VG = 32.17 *I/W
VG = free velocity in f/s
I = recoil of firearm in f/s
W = weight of gun in pounds
32.17 = acceleration of gravity in f/s

I is found by using this equation ...

I = bw * bv + cw * c
bw = bullet weight in grains
bv = bullet velocity in f/s
cw = powder charge weight in grains
c = powder charge velocity constant

The actual energy of free recoil in foot pounds is found from

RE = W * VG^2/64.348

(this uses VG and W from above and 64.328 is the acceleration of gravity times 2 to three places)

and the author uses this formula to calculate "kick"

EG = W * VG^2/64.348 = RE

EG is the energy of free recoil in ft lbs

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in ballistics. It is very readable and an excellant reference book.

We talked abouy this on the big bore forum a few weeks ago ....

teflon,

A high school level oversimplification of the forces acting on the rifle system during recoil. If it makes you feel good though use it, as physics could care less about what you think it is doing.

GSP7,
Good for you man, I take it you NEVER drink? I am so proud of you. You tell yourself just because a man drinks Jack Daniels whiskey he is a moron, and nothing he says is true.

Live on in ignorance and continue to fear the truth. For one day you will be FORCED to confront the truth, and being that you are made of ignorance you will be destroyed by said truth.

Sad, very sad.

Jack is calling me.

ASS_CLOWN