[stand watie]

so you ADMIT, at long last, that you either were IGNORANT OF and/or LIED ABOUT the steam traction machines of the 19th century AND that they worked/WORK well in Great Britain???

do you not know that KNOWLEDGEABLE people here are laughing AT you? don't you care???

i notice that you also didn't mention the mule-drawn cottonpickers/cultivators, that were pulled by 8-12 mules and required the labor of ONE man. is that because you aren't informed enough to know about them OR don't you care that your rant is FACT-FREE???

free dixie,sw

[Heyworth]

Possible and practical are two different things, Watie. I could plow a field with a Caterpillar road grader, but it wouldn't be well suited to the job. You still need to explain why steam tractors were rare throughout the US and not just the south for your theory about them to hold even a drop of water.

do you not know that KNOWLEDGEABLE people here are laughing AT you? don't you care???

I'm still waiting for just one of them to come into this argument on your side, Watie. You've become a laughingstock to the Lost Causers. They're all off arguing fine points of Constitutional law while you're raving about imaginary machines for which you still haven't posted a SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. ("Don't argue with me, argue with the agricultural curator at the Smithsonian").

i notice that you also didn't mention the mule-drawn cottonpickers/cultivators, that were pulled by 8-12 mules and required the labor of ONE man. is that because you aren't informed enough to know about them OR don't you care that your rant is FACT-FREE???

Uh, that's because I've posted about twenty pieces of evidence that prove that everbody in the world but you knows that, whatever bizarre early experiments were conducted to harvest cotton, nothing worked effectively until the Rust brothers developed their machine in the 1930s.