Position Encoding.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:43:26 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:10 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:16:51 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 13, 1:02 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:32:21 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 12, 7:15 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:27:51 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 12, 2:55 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo....@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 11, 6:34 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:56:30 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:35 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:24:58 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:22:07 -0700, hamilton <hamil....@nothere.com> wrote:
On 1/10/2012 10:56 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:30:40 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jan 8, 1:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:

snip

Good Lord, you're stupid.  ...and a liar, to boot.

I imagine that you can persuade yourself that this both claims are
true. Sadly, neither of them are, and you are too dim to realise that
this would make you a liar, if you had wit enough to be held
responsible for the rubbish you post.

You've, once again, shown just how stupid you are. ...and what a liar
you are.  No surprises, though Slowman.  You might start by READING,
thinking, then QUOTING.

You think that posting twaddle in capital letters makes it more
persuasive? You really aren't very bright.

You really can't read or think but at least you showed that you can quote,
when you're not lying.

Whereas you can't be bothered to tell us what you think you are
talking about. It's the kind of cognitive deficit that you see in very
young children, and people with advanced Alzheimer's (though we can be
confident that you couldn't manage advanced anything).

I said what I meant.  You simply can't read, can't think, then lie
about what you think you read.  It's your MO, Slowman.  Try reading
what was written again.  If you have questions, quote the parts you're
having trouble with, ask nicely, and someone may tutor you.

Pure bluff. You thought you'd found an error, have now realised that
you'd screwed up and are now trying to brazen it out.

Another admission that you're stupid as a stump.

It's a pity that the boot is actually on the other foot. Persistent
claims that I'm a liar, but no evidence of a lie, has to mean that you
don't understand reasoned argument - as if we didn't know that
already.

You are a liar, that's well shown.

Really? Where? Do you exchange e-mails with Jim Thompson - who is also
a long way out of touch with reality - in which you swap delusions?

You really are right up there with AlwaysWrong.  Is it hard work?

 You can't post without lying.

You keep on posting this absurd claim, but you have yet to come up
with any lie that I've posted.

Ok, since you admit that you can't read, I'll tell you.  You snipped quotes,
then attributed what you couldn't read to me; a lie.

 You're wrong (in the
instance under "discussion" because it is *not* the male who determines the
sex of the child, unless you believe that males only produce male or female
sperm.

 Of course you would have gotten that from the text you snipped. ...and
had half a brain, which you don't.

My boot is right next to your head, after kicking your ass.

This is a lie. Your boot is in the US and any part of me that you
might like to kick is in the Netherlands. You may dream of some kind
of intellectual equivalent of kicking ass, but - intellectually
speaking - you haven't got a leg to stand on, let alone kick with.

You really don't have to prove how incredibly stupid you are.  We all got that
part, long ago.

You are too stupid to realise that once you've got yourself in hole,
it's a good idea to stop digging it deeper.

Wrong again, AlwaysWrong.

Wrong poster. AlwaysWrong keeps changing his nyms and mine has been
the same for more than a decade now - that too would be a lie, if you
had the wit to realise that you'd got it wrong.

It's getting hard to tell the difference between you.

You do have these minor cognitive difficulties.

Well, it's good to see that you admit the difference is minor.

If you bothered
reading to the end of the posts that you claim to be responding to,
you'd find that mine - unlike those coming from AlwaysWrong - all end
like this

A sentence without a period?  So you brag that you're even dumber than
AlwaysWrong.  OK, we can agree on something.

On Jan 14, 2:09 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:43:26 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:10 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:16:51 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 13, 1:02 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:32:21 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 12, 7:15 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:27:51 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 12, 2:55 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 11, 6:34 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:56:30 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:35 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:24:58 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:22:07 -0700, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
On 1/10/2012 10:56 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:30:40 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jan 8, 1:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:

snip

Good Lord, you're stupid.  ...and a liar, to boot.

I imagine that you can persuade yourself that this both claims are
true. Sadly, neither of them are, and you are too dim to realise that
this would make you a liar, if you had wit enough to be held
responsible for the rubbish you post.

You've, once again, shown just how stupid you are. ...and what a liar
you are.  No surprises, though Slowman.  You might start by READING,
thinking, then QUOTING.

You think that posting twaddle in capital letters makes it more
persuasive? You really aren't very bright.

You really can't read or think but at least you showed that you can quote,
when you're not lying.

Whereas you can't be bothered to tell us what you think you are
talking about. It's the kind of cognitive deficit that you see in very
young children, and people with advanced Alzheimer's (though we can be
confident that you couldn't manage advanced anything).

I said what I meant.  You simply can't read, can't think, then lie
about what you think you read.  It's your MO, Slowman.  Try reading
what was written again.  If you have questions, quote the parts you're
having trouble with, ask nicely, and someone may tutor you.

Pure bluff. You thought you'd found an error, have now realised that
you'd screwed up and are now trying to brazen it out.

Another admission that you're stupid as a stump.

It's a pity that the boot is actually on the other foot. Persistent
claims that I'm a liar, but no evidence of a lie, has to mean that you
don't understand reasoned argument - as if we didn't know that
already.

You are a liar, that's well shown.

Really? Where? Do you exchange e-mails with Jim Thompson - who is also
a long way out of touch with reality - in which you swap delusions?

You really are right up there with AlwaysWrong.  Is it hard work?

 You can't post without lying.

You keep on posting this absurd claim, but you have yet to come up
with any lie that I've posted.

Ok, since you admit that you can't read, I'll tell you.  You snipped quotes,
then attributed what you couldn't read to me; a lie.

When was this? I presume that it is somewhere in this thread, which is
now up to 552 posts, but without some more specific indication of what
you've misunderstood I can't actually show you up as the nitwit you
are.

 You're wrong (in the
instance under "discussion" because it is *not* the male who determines the
sex of the child, unless you believe that males only produce male or female
sperm.

There are only two sorts of sperm in this context - those that carry
an X-chromosome, and can only produce girls, and those that carry a Y-
chromosome and can only produce boys. Some people have odd collections
of sex chromosomes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter%27s_syndrome

but this isn't relevant to this discussion.

Neither males nor females can determine the sex of their children -
short of sorting the sperm on the basis of the sex chromosome content,
which isn't yet all that practical,or aborting the fetus after the sex
can be determined, which isn't commonly practised in the US, and
clearly wasn't what you had in whatever you use instead of a mind.

 Of course you would have gotten that from the text you snipped. ...and
had half a brain, which you don't.

What text? I'm not going to plow through half the thread trying to
find what you think you posted and I then snipped. I certainly can't
recall you posting anything that showed that you had any grasp of
elementary biology, but you may think otherwise - show us the text,
rather than carrying on as if you think are the sci.electronics.design
equivalent of the pope.

My boot is right next to your head, after kicking your ass.

This is a lie. Your boot is in the US and any part of me that you
might like to kick is in the Netherlands. You may dream of some kind
of intellectual equivalent of kicking ass, but - intellectually
speaking - you haven't got a leg to stand on, let alone kick with.

You really don't have to prove how incredibly stupid you are.  We all got that
part, long ago.

You like to think that, and you are dumb enough to think that your
making the claim doesn't show you up as a hopeless nitwit.

You are too stupid to realise that once you've got yourself in hole,
it's a good idea to stop digging it deeper.

Wrong again, AlwaysWrong.

Wrong poster. AlwaysWrong keeps changing his nyms and mine has been
the same for more than a decade now - that too would be a lie, if you
had the wit to realise that you'd got it wrong.

It's getting hard to tell the difference between you.

You do have these minor cognitive difficulties.

Well, it's good to see that you admit the difference is minor.

And a rather more significant problem with text comprehension.

If you bothered
reading to the end of the posts that you claim to be responding to,
you'd find that mine - unlike those coming from AlwaysWrong - all end
like this

A sentence without a period?  So you brag that you're even dumber than
AlwaysWrong.  OK, we can agree on something.

I didn't think you had the wit to get the joke. But it will probably
have amused most of the lurkers, and your failure to get it will amuse
the same audience even more.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:30:41 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 14, 2:09 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:43:26 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 13, 7:10 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:16:51 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 13, 1:02 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:32:21 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 12, 7:15 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 02:27:51 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 12, 2:55 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:15:01 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 11, 6:34 pm, k...@att.bizzz wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 08:56:30 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Jan 11, 1:35 pm, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:24:58 -0800 (PST),BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org
wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:22:07 -0700, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
On 1/10/2012 10:56 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:30:40 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jan 8, 1:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:

snip

Good Lord, you're stupid.  ...and a liar, to boot.

I imagine that you can persuade yourself that this both claims are
true. Sadly, neither of them are, and you are too dim to realise that
this would make you a liar, if you had wit enough to be held
responsible for the rubbish you post.

You've, once again, shown just how stupid you are. ...and what a liar
you are.  No surprises, though Slowman.  You might start by READING,
thinking, then QUOTING.

You think that posting twaddle in capital letters makes it more
persuasive? You really aren't very bright.

You really can't read or think but at least you showed that you can quote,
when you're not lying.

Whereas you can't be bothered to tell us what you think you are
talking about. It's the kind of cognitive deficit that you see in very
young children, and people with advanced Alzheimer's (though we can be
confident that you couldn't manage advanced anything).

I said what I meant.  You simply can't read, can't think, then lie
about what you think you read.  It's your MO, Slowman.  Try reading
what was written again.  If you have questions, quote the parts you're
having trouble with, ask nicely, and someone may tutor you.

Pure bluff. You thought you'd found an error, have now realised that
you'd screwed up and are now trying to brazen it out.

Another admission that you're stupid as a stump.

It's a pity that the boot is actually on the other foot. Persistent
claims that I'm a liar, but no evidence of a lie, has to mean that you
don't understand reasoned argument - as if we didn't know that
already.

You are a liar, that's well shown.

Really? Where? Do you exchange e-mails with Jim Thompson - who is also
a long way out of touch with reality - in which you swap delusions?

You really are right up there with AlwaysWrong.  Is it hard work?

 You can't post without lying.

You keep on posting this absurd claim, but you have yet to come up
with any lie that I've posted.

Ok, since you admit that you can't read, I'll tell you.  You snipped quotes,
then attributed what you couldn't read to me; a lie.

When was this? I presume that it is somewhere in this thread, which is
now up to 552 posts, but without some more specific indication of what
you've misunderstood I can't actually show you up as the nitwit you
are.

God, you're stupid!  Look *straight* back in this thread segment, you
Alzheimer's ridden old twit.

On 1/11/2012 6:55 PM, Jamie wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:22:07 -0700, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com
wrote:

On 1/10/2012 10:56 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:30:40 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:


On Jan 8, 1:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


The thing I really don't understand about women is what they see in
men. I'm not complaining, mind you.


We fix things. Move furniture. Catch food.


Those things can be handy...so, women make more of us, as needed.


...and we make them, as allowed.


The male determines the sex of a new born child.


No, as my father used to tell my mother (four boys, they were waiting
for a
girl), it's the woman who chooses.


So you think you have a say in the matter ?


I say "yes", but...



For anybody who doesn't know elementary biology, the sex of a human
child is determined by the sperm that fertilises the egg.

The egg comes from the mother, who doesn't have any Y chromosomes to
pass on.

The sperm comes from the father, who has both X and Y chromosomes -
half the sperm get an X (and will produce girls) while the other half
get a Y (and will produce boys).

There are schemes for sorting sperm carrying the Y chromosome from
sperm carrying the X-chromosome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_selection

but they aren't mainstream yet.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

-
Slowman, don't waste your time researching that. You do nothing
but shoot blanks on everything that comes out of your mouth, why
would the other end be any different!

Jamie


And the same can't be said of you, right? Talk about a blank...

Looked in the mirror lately? That's like calling the kettle black.

On Jan 12, 1:55 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:22:07 -0700, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:

On 1/10/2012 10:56 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:30:40 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jan 8, 1:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

The thing I really don't understand about women is what they see in
men. I'm not complaining, mind you.

We fix things. Move furniture. Catch food.

Those things can be handy...so, women make more of us, as needed.

...and we make them, as allowed.

The male determines the sex of a new born child.

No, as my father used to tell my mother (four boys, they were waiting for a
girl), it's the woman who chooses.

So you think you have a say in the matter ?

I say "yes", but...

For anybody who doesn't know elementary biology, the sex of a human
child is determined by the sperm that fertilises the egg.

The egg comes from the mother, who doesn't have any Y chromosomes to
pass on.

The sperm comes from the father, who has both X and Y chromosomes -
half the sperm get an X (and will produce girls) while the other half
get a Y (and will produce boys).

There are schemes for sorting sperm carrying the Y chromosome from
sperm carrying the X-chromosome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_selection

but they aren't mainstream yet.

Sloman, don't waste your time researching that. You do nothing
but shoot blanks on everything that comes out of your mouth, why
would the other end be any different!


Researching? This is general knowledge amongst people with any
education - the wikipedia article was strictly for the benefit of
nitwits like you and krw, who seem to have slept through high school
biology

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John S wrote:

On 1/11/2012 6:55 PM, Jamie wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:22:07 -0700, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com
wrote:

On 1/10/2012 10:56 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:30:40 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com
wrote:


On Jan 8, 1:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:


The thing I really don't understand about women is what they
see in
men. I'm not complaining, mind you.


We fix things. Move furniture. Catch food.


Those things can be handy...so, women make more of us, as needed.


...and we make them, as allowed.


The male determines the sex of a new born child.


No, as my father used to tell my mother (four boys, they were waiting
for a
girl), it's the woman who chooses.


So you think you have a say in the matter ?


I say "yes", but...



For anybody who doesn't know elementary biology, the sex of a human
child is determined by the sperm that fertilises the egg.

The egg comes from the mother, who doesn't have any Y chromosomes to
pass on.

The sperm comes from the father, who has both X and Y chromosomes -
half the sperm get an X (and will produce girls) while the other half
get a Y (and will produce boys).

There are schemes for sorting sperm carrying the Y chromosome from
sperm carrying the X-chromosome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_selection

but they aren't mainstream yet.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

-
Slowman, don't waste your time researching that. You do nothing
but shoot blanks on everything that comes out of your mouth, why
would the other end be any different!

Jamie


And the same can't be said of you, right? Talk about a blank...

Looked in the mirror lately? That's like calling the kettle black.

Don't fool yourself, you aren't a prize package.

Shouldn't be no surprise thought, usual excrement that flows from your
direction.

Jamie

Bill Sloman wrote:
On Jan 12, 1:55 am, Jamie
jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Jan 11, 1:18 am, "k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:22:07 -0700, hamilton <hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:

On 1/10/2012 10:56 AM, k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 20:30:40 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Jan 8, 1:43 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>  wrote:

The thing I really don't understand about women is what they see in
men. I'm not complaining, mind you.

We fix things.  Move furniture.  Catch food.

Those things can be handy...so, women make more of us, as needed.

...and we make them, as allowed.

The male determines the sex of a new born child.

No, as my father used to tell my mother (four boys, they were waiting for a
girl), it's the woman who chooses.

So you think you have a say in the matter ?

I say "yes", but...

For anybody who doesn't know elementary biology, the sex of a human
child is determined by the sperm that fertilises the egg.

The egg comes from the mother, who doesn't have any Y chromosomes to
pass on.

The sperm comes from the father, who has both X and Y chromosomes -
half the sperm get an X (and will produce girls) while the other half
get a Y (and will produce boys).

There are schemes for sorting sperm carrying the Y chromosome from
sperm carrying the X-chromosome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_selection

but they aren't mainstream yet.

Sloman, don't waste your time researching that. You do nothing
but shoot blanks on everything that comes out of your mouth, why
would the other end be any different!

Researching? This is general knowledge amongst people with any
education - the wikipedia article was strictly for the benefit of
nitwits like you and krw, who seem to have slept through high school
biology

  No, I didn't sleep through it, I was already educated on the principle
of reproduction before I reached high school, thank you.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:00:32 +1100, omg_at_grrr.id.au wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 10:51:25 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon_at_On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

...

I'm working with Agent support... we've about got it worked out how to
add filtering on message body content...

They going to do an update then? Or is it a method available now?

Thanks,
Grant.

Presence of "Sloman" or "Phil Allison" in a message = bye, bye.

Perhaps also "Larkin", since his technical content is still hovering
just above zero ;-)

So troll-feed all you want... I won't be annoyed.

...Jim Thompson

They're adding it to their desired feature list, but won't guarantee
me that they'll do it.

However, in our bantering back-and-forth, I've learned enough about
how Agent works that, within a few days, I'll have a Macro (*) working
that will do the same task, albeit slow... seconds... just a pause in
the download, versus as fast as you can blink.

(*) Using Macro Express, which I highly recommend... I use it heavily
in automating many PSpice tasks.

...Jim Thompson

Only a christian would think like this.

hamilton wrote:


Only a christian would think like this.


How would 'you' know how Christians think?


Catching up on old posts ??