Forum accelerant (a question)

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Thu Apr 26, 2001 6:07 am

Since Dave says the forum is slowing down, well, let's punch things up around here.So, everyone who's found this comic already, answer this:1) How did you find the comic? Did Dave tell you about it?2) Do you know Dave in real life, from an online venue, do you not know him at all, or do you pretend not to know him in public?3) If you've ever had any bearing on Dave's life, how do you think your story could be exaggerated into a Vicious Lie?4) What crazy stunt would you be willing to pull just to get a mention in Vicious Lies?Just a few odd questions for you. Give us some answers.
My answers are:1) Dave told me about the comic.
2) Dave's my cousin. I was a groomsman in his wedding, and I once shot him out of a cannon on a bet. (Okay, I made the cannon part up.)
3) Since Dave and I have always discussed weird fictional ideas and bizarre physics theories, I'd like to think I'd be a mad scientist in the comic.
4) I'd shoot Dave out of a cannon.Lummox JR

Anngel · Post by **Anngel** » Thu Apr 26, 2001 7:38 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:

1) How did you find the comic? Did Dave tell you about it?2) Do you know Dave in real life, from an online venue, do you not know him at all, or do you pretend not to know him in public?3) If you've ever had any bearing on Dave's life, how do you think your story could be exaggerated into a Vicious Lie?4) What crazy stunt would you be willing to pull just to get a mention in Vicious Lies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1) Yes, he told me....I'm his wife....had he not told me, the snoring comic would have had him in the dog house BIG time...2)I hope I know him in real life.... otherwise, the last three years of sex have been some really awesome hallucinations!3)Easy....the snoring comic....I have NEVER set off car alarms....security systems, yes...car alarms, no.4)I don't think I should answer this one....my brother reads the forum....the sex response is already going to gross him out....however, this would involve sex as well!Anngel = )

Chris Purcell · Post by **Chris Purcell** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 1:45 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
1) How did you find the comic? Did Dave tell you about it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not directly, but yes - I'm a mad <A HREF="http://www.schlockmercenary.com" TARGET=_blank>Schlock</A> fan... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>2) Do you know Dave in real life, from an online venue, do you not know him at all, or do you pretend not to know him in public?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I live in England. Online is the only way... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Anngel:
I have NEVER set off car alarms....security systems, yes...car alarms, no<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*Sigh* What a shattering of illusions!Wouldn't one need to snore a little louder than Concorde to set off a car alarm? <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/tongue. ... cidentally, what's the difference between (and relation between) Keenspot and Keenspace?Chris Purcell

Chris Purcell · Post by **Chris Purcell** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 3:44 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
Boxjam, as I recall gravity is about 100 times less powerful than electromagnetism. EM is the most powerful known force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>But hang on, isn't one of the nuclear forces responsible for fusion? I thought *that* was the most powerful force known - after all, the strong force (or is it the weak? I don't do forces much) holds the nucleus together despite its positive charge.But hey, what do I know - I'm a mathematician who used to read New Scientist, not a physicist. Maybe I'll ask someone around here if nobody else posts a more coherent response than mine... <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/wink.gif">Chris Purcell (AKA Kritter)

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 3:47 am

Nope, the strong and weak nuclear forces are the weakest of the four. (3 guesses which one is more powerful.) Gravity comes in above those by many orders of magnitude as I recall, and magnetism is two orders of magnitude greater than that. For some reason I remember this from high school physics, though I couldn't produce the actual numbers if my life depended on it.Lummox JR

Chris Purcell · Post by **Chris Purcell** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 4:05 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Somebody Strange:
 Chris -- good to have you here, by the way<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Cheers. Glad you've got your own place at last <IMG SRC="http://www.keenspace.com/forums/tongue.gif"> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And then there's one in particular that could explain why Keenspot had some trouble getting advertisers. If something offends you, it will be in that comic, I guarantee it. I'd explain more, but I really don't want to encourage ANYONE to read it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Ah. Would that be E********ion Now, Dave?It is a shade "adult" in nature, isn't it.Here's an interesting question: How can porn be so distasteful in Western culture yet perfectly accepted in others (Japan IIRC has porn on the same shelves as kiddies cartoons in many stores)? Is the actual content itself different? Or is the influence of culture really that all-pervasive but arbitrary?(Imagine a world where love didn't exist, only loyalty. If you can't, read C J Cherryh's Foreigner series.)Hmmm. Topic. Straying from. Be I.Time to sleep...Chris/Kritter[This message has been edited by Chris Purcell (edited 04-27-2001).]

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 5:04 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Chris Purcell:
 Incidentally, what's the difference between (and relation between) Keenspot and Keenspace?Chris Purcell<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Chris -- good to have you here, by the way -- Keenspot was the original site set up by Chris (Superosity) Crosby and Darren "Gav" (Nukees) Bleuel, along with business partners Teri Crosby and Nate Stone (Stone? I think it's Stone. Maybe.)Keenspot now hosts approximately 45 comics that Chris, Darren, Teri, and Nate have determined to be "the best" by their own personally held criteria. I've talked to Chris about it, and he said it's really a matter of personal taste and a desire to have a variety. If you go to <A HREF="http://www.keenspot.com" TARGET=_blank>Keenspot</A> and look
at several of the comics, you'll see what a variety there really is. Schlock is my favorite, but I regularly read several of the others as well. However, some of them are just not my style -- I don't get into the long serialized non-humor strips like "The Wandering Ones," for example. And then there's one in particular that could explain why Keenspot had some trouble getting advertisers. If something offends you, it will be in that comic, I guarantee it. I'd explain more, but I really don't want to encourage ANYONE to read it.Keenspace, on the other hand, has no restrictions. If you draw a comic and want to put it online, Keenspace will take you. It's a "sister site" of Keenspot, designed to keep interest and traffic coming to Keen Entertainment sites without diluting the strength of the leading comics at the 'spot. Chris/Darren/Teri/Nate are constantly getting e-mails telling them that such-and-such a comic should be on the 'spot, but right now they aren't planning on expanding until they get some other technical behind-the-scenes things straightened out.A much shorter way of explaining the difference would be: most of the 'spotters are professionals, would-be professionals, or very high-quality amateurs. Most (not all) of the 'spacers are middle- to low-quality amateurs who do this as a hobby. There are definitely some great comics on the 'space -- <A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com" TARGET=_blank>Boxjam's Doodle</A> being my personal favorite.--Strange/Dave the long-winded------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.Neurotic -- sane, but
unhappy about it.

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 6:19 am

1) How did you find the comic? Did Dave tell you about it?Dave told me about it.2) Do you know Dave in real life, from an online venue, do you not know him at all, or do you pretend not to know him in public?Online, from him posting on my message board.3) If you've ever had any bearing on Dave's life, how do you think your story could be exaggerated into a Vicious Lie?I have no idea. I know nothing about physics,
really, but I have a sneaking suspicion that
'gravity' is the tiny, tiny difference between
the strength of a negative electrical charge
and a positive one. I know Hawking says that
if the difference between a negative charge
and a positive one was as great as one part
in a billion billion, the universe would
disintegrate in the literal sense, very
rapidly. I really don't know if gravity's
force is a billion billion times weaker than
magnetism or not, but maybe.Wait - what was the question? Please don't
read the stuff above - that may be a doodle
soon.4) What crazy stunt would you be willing to pull just to get a mention in Vicious Lies?Filling out a hundred catalog requests with
Dave's address, and variations of his name.------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 7:10 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by BoxJam:
4) What crazy stunt would you be willing to pull just to get a mention in Vicious Lies?Filling out a hundred catalog requests with
Dave's address, and variations of his name.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You have struck terror into the very heart of me.And of my mail carrier.--Strange/Dave------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.Neurotic -- sane, but
unhappy about it.

Bambibasher · Post by **Bambibasher** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 8:56 am

Well as Anngel said above i am pretty grossed out by the sex comment since I am her brother. And in response to the questions.
1)My mother told me
2)Unfortunatly I do know Dave in real life and his farts stink something terrible, HEHE!
3)I can't remember the question but flaming testies of fire sounds good.
4)I think i should be the guy that runs around doing random stuff to random people at random times throughout random comics. Well that's enough randomness for now. Hasta manyana. or something to that affect.
[This message has been edited by bambibasher (edited 04-27-2001).]

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 9:22 am

Boxjam, as I recall gravity is about 100 times less powerful than electromagnetism. EM is the most powerful known force.If I was a big believer in Einstein-based quantum physics, which I'm not, I would postulate that gravity is the effect of a "thinning" of space by the organization of energy into mass. The waveforms making up any given mass would tend to "vibrate", and if they had more trouble moving in one direction they would tend to move toward the other. Thus you could look at gravity more from a standpoint of buoyancy (did I spell that right) or pressure.Since I'm from the school of thought that says space isn't made from any kind of fabric, it's just empty dimensionality, I'm forced to search for different opinions. Nobody really understands the weak and strong nuclear forces, either, so it's probably tied in pretty tightly with those even though they're not remotely as powerful.
Makes you wonder, though: Maybe they're related. Perhaps two different forces are at work and the third is merely an artifact of their combination.See what happens when I get all philosophical about physics? I'm dangerous like this.Lummox JR

Uncle monster · Post by **Uncle monster** » Fri Apr 27, 2001 10:07 am

In answer to the accelerant...
1. Saw Daves post on Schlockmercenary forum.
2. Only know Dave from Schlock forum, but we did go to different high schools together.
3. Well, since the Dave in Vicious Lies is based on the Dave who writes Vicious Lies, and I'm posting to Dave's forum about Vicious Lies, then my posting could snowball in a paradoxical sitcom-like event that could eventually have almost no impact whatsoever.
4. I'd vote Democrat. (Just kidding)------------------
You get ID. I'm going to get artillery. -Schlock

HannibalV · Post by **HannibalV** » Sat Apr 28, 2001 6:15 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
Since Dave says the forum is slowing down, well, let's punch things up around here.So, everyone who's found this comic already, answer this:1) How did you find the comic? Did Dave tell you about it?2) Do you know Dave in real life, from an online venue, do you not know him at all, or do you pretend not to know him in public?3) If you've ever had any bearing on Dave's life, how do you think your story could be exaggerated into a Vicious Lie?4) What crazy stunt would you be willing to pull just to get a mention in Vicious Lies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>1. Dave told me about Vicious Lies. Dave has also told me vicious lies, but I've forgiven him for that...after the scarring faded.2. I know Dave from real life. We spent a fascinating year together as agents of the underground resistance, fighting the corrupt Mkwumba regime in Lower Volta/Osafan Ikrub. Three cheers for Kotungo and the glorious revolution!3. Really polite drunk guys playing with fire.4. I'd simply remind Dave of the contents of the microfilm I hold.------------------
If they're likely to improve the quality of life, why not invite an invading horde in?

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Mon Apr 30, 2001 8:54 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
Makes you wonder, though: Maybe they're related. Perhaps two different forces are at work and the third is merely an artifact of their combination.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, the big epiphanies in physics pretty
much *have to* be like that, right?After all, physics describes models, and
doesn't offer much in the way of *why* the
universe is like it is, except that it's
caused by some other part of physics.Like, Newton realizing that the thing that
kept the heavenly bodies moving was the *same
thing* that makes things fall to the ground.What is that thing? Physics can't *really*
answer that, except to label it, and maybe
eventually find out it's an artifact of some
other basic universal 'postulate,' if you
will.That is, physics will eventually relate it
to some other impenetrable force of nature,
or just leave it the way it is.------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.

Bambibasher · Post by **Bambibasher** » Mon Apr 30, 2001 9:48 am

What the heck is going on with the forum here not much is really being said. As for the physics topic I finished taking Physics courses last semester at college and plan to never look back. Beginner level phyics is alright and the upper level stuff is cool but it just takes to much brain power and for some of us that is not an option. By the way Dave how's the family mine not yours.

Somebody Strange · Post by **Somebody Strange** » Tue May 01, 2001 12:05 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
Many similar things can be said about forensics, except that forensics is a science of observation. Tendencies of chemicals to collect in certain organs, of gunpowder to spread in recognizable patterns, etc. are all based on a large body of true scientific study and applied to reconstruct a probable picture of an event based on its outcome. However we have no guides of observation for the fossilization process, nor for the changes rock could undergo over large spans of time.
Lummox JR<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Okay, so if I'm understanding correctly... and I may not be... the creationist aspect really wasn't your thrust. You're more concerned about the impossibility of testing the theorems?I can understand that on one level, but on another, I'm not so sure. Atomic theory, for example, is still largely speculative in that we have not honestly seen atoms visually. We have electronic measurements and very detailed equipment giving us answers that lead us to theories, but it's still very theoretical. I don't know enough about atoms and their components to be dangerous in this argument, but if I understand correctly, we have a very solid working theory that might, just might be bunk.Forensics, on the other hand, is largely taken from the concept of observe, record, and review. I'm a forensic nut -- which you'll see when my book eventually comes out (I've toned it down for non-forensic nuts, so don't worry) -- so I understand the process there is very scientific; however, many times forensics ends up a bigger guessing game than most cops or any TV shows want to admit. So many factors go into things such as blood spatter patterns that it can be wild speculation that eventually leads to new theories. (Did the person have unusually heavy blood? What was the temperature of the room at the time of the incident? Had the walls recently been in contact with particular cleaning chemicals? Could the victim have been airborne at the moment of impact?... Most of these have been ruled out as having much effect at all, most of the time -- but it's like chaos theory: ignore one factor, and the whole thing could go kablooey.)So my question (which may read like a challenge but is meant as an honest curious question) is: Do you consider atomic physics to be hard science, or do you classify it in the same category as paleontology?(Boxjam -- I'd like you to meet my cousin Lummox. We go way back. Lummox, I'd like you to meet one of my webcomic heroes, BoxJam. If not for him, I wouldn't be doing this.)--Strange/Dave------------------
<A HREF="http://viciouslies.keenspace.com" TARGET=_blank>Vicious Lies.</A> Falsely promising you a grand opening since Friday the 13th.Neurotic -- sane, but unhappy about it.

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Tue May 01, 2001 12:27 am

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lummox JR:
I said paleontology isn't science because there's really no scientific method involved in it. Where's the hypothesis, and how can it be properly tested? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, before we got into that argument, I
was trying to have a meta-argument as to why
this argument got started. It seemed to come,
as I said, out of left field, although I
think you were making a point with it that I
missed.Anyway, I appreciate the analysis here -
science is a process of testing hypotheses,
paleontology doesn't seem to do that,
therefore it's not a science.I suggest that it does test hypotheses. From
stat classes we probably all had to take, we
know that it's OK to look at *some of your
data*, formulate a hypothesis, or model, and
then use the rest of your data to test it.Paleontologists find bones together, make
guesses as to why, which has implications
which can be tested.Stegosaurus bones are found at the same level
of rock as Allosaurus. Paleontologists say
that means they lived at the same time. OK,
so what does that imply?It implies that if and when more Steg bones
are found, they will be found at the same
level of rock, and if and when Allosaurus
bones are found, they will too.Stegosaurus bones are not found in the same
level of rock as sabre-tooth cats. We
hypothesize that they won't be found
together at all. We hypothesize that, if
bite marks are ever found on Stegosaurus
fossils, they won't match sabre-tooth cat
mouths.All of these are tests of predictions.To take it further, carbon dating gives
roughly the same results for the whole group
of stegosauruses, sabre tooth cats give
vastly different, but roughly uniform within
its group results.Conclusion - carbon dating is measuring
*something.* Given lab tests that show
carbon gives off neutrons at a predictable
rate, we conclude it's age. Given that
these things are in the same level of rock
as other things that have the same
radioactivity, we are *de facto* testing our
hypothesis about things in the same level
of rock being the same age.Every new fossil discovery *is a test* of the
models that have been set up previously.A couple of posts ago (and I'm getting a more
clear idea what your point was now when you
brought up paleontology), you said advanced
physics is pure crap (btw, Einstein and
quantum physics are already at odds, your
disproving Einstein may not shake up the
quantum guys). Whenever the advanced
physicists can, though, they test this
stuff. That makes it science again.For instance, Einstein said light was affected
by gravity. A lot of people thought it was
ridiculous. Finally someone came up with a
way to test it. They looked at the stars
during an eclipse, and the ones right 'near'
the sun weren't where they were supposed to
be - as Einstein predicted (it's because the
gravity of the sun was bending the starlight
as it travelled past the sun).Similarly, all sorts of tests are being done
on background radiation *to see if it matches
expected results*.That, by the definition we both agree on, is
science.------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.[This message has been edited by BoxJam (edited 05-01-2001).]

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Tue May 01, 2001 12:53 am

Dave, I'd say atomic physics constitutes hard science. Although we haven't actually seen most atoms (electron microscopes actually can see big atoms like uranium), chemical experiments suggested they existed. Further experiments with measuring weight, reactions, pressure, charge, magnetic properties, and so on have given us much of the information we know in the periodic table. In each case someone hypothesized, ran an experiment, and drew conclusions from their observations. Likewise I can accept the dual wave/particle nature of a photon because experimentation has shown it to have the properties of both.Note that not all observation is by eye; we just need some way of measuring any given phenomenon.Now to Boxjam: Rock strata and carbon dating are two of the methods of measurement in paleontology I consider unscientific.In the case of rock strata, there have been fossils found called polystrate fossils, including items such as tree trunks, which cover more than one layer, which from what we believe of fossilization shouldn't be possible, because the organic material would have decayed long before the second layer could be built. The idea that these particular layers built up over time doesn't hold up well; it is, however, commonly accepted. (Other areas, who knows?) Additionally there are fossils which by some measurements predate fossils found on lower strata. Myself, I think rock strata in most cases might be best explained by sediments dropping out of solution.Carbon dating, like other radioactive dating tests, is based on assumptions. Prior tests made assumptions about the initial ratio of one radioactive element in a rock sample to its final broken down product, yet these tests have largely fallen by the wayside because their assumptions are inaccurate. Carbon dating is based on the rate of absorption of Carbon-14 in living tissue. However, this too makes an assumptions: that the rate of absorption has remained constant for all life over long periods of time. As I recall Carbon-14 is a by-product of some forms of radiation; this further assumes, then, that the radiation levels were constant.
We know carbon-dating is fairly accurate within the span of recorded human history because we can measure it against objects whose age we know from history. Such objects of course range to about 5,000 years old. Past that, however, the dates we hear for carbon dating tend to jump exponentially, up into the tens of thousands and quickly into the millions and billions. If the rate of Carbon-14 absorption in living tissue was considerably lower at some point (and for all we know it could have been), say 6,000 years or so ago, lower amounts would be found in fossils and this would be consistent with the extraordinarily high results from carbon dating.The aspects of paleontology which focus on reconstruction I would call science in the same terms as forensics, because we've observed that musculature and bones tend to follow similar patterns and those patterns can be applied based on our understanding of current species.Lummox JR

BoxJam · Post by **BoxJam** » Tue May 01, 2001 1:26 am

Well, your use of the term 'polystrate' is
telling.I could defend the paleontologist view on
that, especially in the matter of tree
trunks; however, I'm not sure it's what
we're after.I don't see why problems imply that
something isn't a science. Some experiments
are going to yield the results you expect,
some aren't.For the sake of argument, if polystrate
fossils were a problem with the rock layering
identifying periods of time, that would be
wonderful science.And a whole bunch of new hypotheses would
sprout, and people would try to think of
ways to test them.BTW, I don't see where your hypothesis that
rock strata are formed by sediments dropping
out of solution does anything but fit really
well with the notion that the lower you go
in sedimentary rock, the older you go.
------------------
<A HREF="http://www.boxjamsdoodle.com/" TARGET=_blank>BoxJam's Doodle</A> - the ballast
that keeps <A HREF="http://www.altbrand.com/" TARGET=_blank>Alt Brand</A> down.

Lummox JR · Post by **Lummox JR** » Tue May 01, 2001 3:54 am

Admittedly it's been a while since I heard about polystrate fossils and I haven't followed up on that. It does pose an interesting problem, to be sure, but basically my point is that the current conjecture (I can't call it a theory; no observation involved) about layering can't account for it. It's not so much that something isn't science because holes were found in a theory, but in this case I think something is called a theory that isn't, and it's widely accepted without question. I'm rather curious what alternate explanations have arisen to deal with these things.In fact using layering to date fossils is deceptive because geology and paleontology often reference each other. Which brings us back to the problem of the source of the hard data: Carbon dating. Carbon dating can be gauged scientifically for objects whose age is known by hard fact, and for those it holds up well, which indicates its assumptions are probably valid (or close) throughout recorded history. Past that, it's an open ballpark.About light being bent by gravity, I didn't get a chance to address that earlier. What's interesting about that (I don't argue the results) is that it flies in the face of special relativity's assumption that light moves at c relative to everything. Throughout physics there are examples of light bending or slowing down; why can't it speed up?I can feel comfortable discounting special relativity because the measurements on it are all influenced in some way by electromagnetic forces; electromagnetism only acts at the speed of light. For example: Particles in an accelerator ring get harder to push as they approach c. Is this because they're getting heavier due to mass dilation, or is it that the electromagnetic forces can't quite exert the same oomph on a particle moving almost at the same speed? The Lorentz transformations are said to describe how an object reacts relative to another object when they move at high relative speed, but couldn't it be said that they merely describe the appearance of what happens to those objects? By those transformations, perhaps it's possible to accelerate past c after all, but to an observer it would look like your acceleration slowed down.It boils down to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. We can't know the position of an electron and its velocity at the same time--because any observation we make requires bombarding the electron with some sort of particle, interacting with it. The observer interacts with the observed. We could get around this with an instrument that didn't cause such interaction, but as far as we know none exists. Because our measuring devices are all based in some way on light, their results--in terms of determining dilation due to special relativity--are ambiguous depending on the assumption: Is light speed constant relative to everything, or is it merely emitted at a constant speed?Lummox JR