Change-over to enewable energy

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 28, 2:09 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 6:26 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 12:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 3:18 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 4:24 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:
I really enjoy reading your posts.  It is interesting to see how wrong
your  view of the U.S. media is.  For instance you believe right wing
interests control much of the newspapers and television stations.

Every American right-winger thinks that the US media is biased in
favour of the left.

Every European notes that even the most "left-wing" US newspapers
aren't any more left wing than the UK's Daily Telegraph, which looks
right-wing to everybody over here.

Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals.

Dramatically wrong. The split dates back to the 1880s, and was
motivated by the proto-communists desire to assign a "leading role" to
political activists, while the socialists remained wedded to democracy

It was a joke Bill.

Really? Pretty much everything you post reflect a deeply distorted
view of the world, so it's hard to identify which absurd proposition
should not be taken seriously.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property--tax those
richies!  Pass this bill!  Pass this bill!  (Ooops, wandered there,
didn't we?)

The distinguishing feature of communism is the leading role of the
communist party, who get to control all the property, and have a
depressingly human tendency to hog the benefits that devolve from the
various sorts of property. It sets up an oligarchy.

Both believe in taking what you've made and spreading it to those who
haven't, and act surprised when this doesn't encourage you to work
harder, hire, or expand the economy.

Socialists do have an enthusiasm for providing community-wide social
services, paid for by taxes in the same way that every society pays
for collective services like roads, bridges and defence. Taxes do
involve taking some of what you've made and spending it on services
for everybody. There are upper limits to the amount that any
governemnt can collect in tax - people move away if it costs too much
to do business in a high tax area - but modern European socialist
governments don't tax at that level, or anywhere near close to it, and
don't seem to be having any trouble with under-productive workers of
entrepreneurs.

, they
don't want it applied to themselves.  They don't want to pay a cent
more, and half the time don't want to pay their share.

I know why you like to think that, but it is a totally bizarre claim.

This little collection of right wing delusions is also funny, in a
depressing kind of way.

Socialism tottered on a bit longer--reaching an inflection point
around the turn of the 21st century--before imploding in the early
2010's.

European socialism is doing fine.
A bunch of countries which spent
appreciable periods under right-wing control - by Salazar in Portugal,
Franco in Spain , Mussolini in Italy and the colonels in Greece -

That sure explains Germany, star of Europe.

The Germans more or less invented socialism. Hilter had to call
himself a "national socialist" to get his foot in the door, and there
were plenty of people around who still knew what socialism was about
when his fifteen-year Reich was dismantled.

are
now doing badly, precisely because their populations haven't had the
time to internalise the socialist world view, and are correspondly
less willing to pay their taxes and think about the common good.

Translation: "Common good" = "we own you and your work" = "gimme."

You find it convenient to think so. Amongst other things, this kind of
half-witted lampoon saves you from having to think about what is
actually going on.

You see this as a constraint on the invisible hand of the free market,
where political advantage (as in tax loopholes) is one more commodity
to be bought and sold.

No, that's a separate misconception.

You do have an extensive stable of misconceptions. Which one should I
have been referring to?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sep 28, 6:36 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

No. Either too much of a coward to risk getting it wrong, or - more
likely - too ignorant to be able to confidently pick out a salient
difference.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Dream on.

Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 28, 8:14 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 28, 6:36 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

No. Either too much of a coward to risk getting it wrong, or - more
likely - too ignorant to be able to confidently pick out a salient
difference.

Dream on.

Looks like the coward option, then.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen                                                

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 27, 12:34 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 3:05 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 5:26 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
You're lost in the details.  If the model doesn't accurately reflect
the physical system, tweaking a bunch of unrelated coefficients
doesn't rehabilitate it.  

You don't understand the details. No model accurately represents a
phyiscal system - they are all more or less useful simplications.

You can artificially make it reproduce
arbitrary historical data, and pretend you've modeled reality, while
conferring zero actual power of prediction.

That is the sort of mistake a beginner can make, if they don't
undestand what they are doing.

That's exactly the mistake they describe making, in detail.

The art lies in getting a useful
approximation to reality.

Which there's almost zero chance they've done.  Your expert describes
shooting in the dark, hoping to hit something.

Wrong. And here's a report of a very simple model that captures a lot
of cloud complexity from this month's Physics Today

http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/minimalist_model_captures_water-cycle_complexities

You really don't have clue.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/minimalist_model_captures_water-cycle_complexities

 

On Sep 28, 1:22 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 28, 2:09 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Sep 27, 6:26 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 12:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 3:18 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals.

Dramatically wrong. The split dates back to the 1880s, and was
motivated by the proto-communists desire to assign a "leading role" to
political activists, while the socialists remained wedded to democracy

It was a joke Bill.

Really? Pretty much everything you post reflect a deeply distorted
view of the world, so it's hard to identify which absurd proposition
should not be taken seriously.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property--tax those
richies!  Pass this bill!  Pass this bill!  (Ooops, wandered there,
didn't we?)

The distinguishing feature of communism is the leading role of the
communist party, who get to control all the property, and have a
depressingly human tendency to hog the benefits that devolve from the
various sorts of property. It sets up an oligarchy.

<grin> (hint: Google my 1st sentence.)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

On Sep 28, 5:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 12:34 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Sep 27, 3:05 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:


That's exactly the mistake they describe making, in detail.

The art lies in getting a useful
approximation to reality.

Which there's almost zero chance they've done.  Your expert describes
shooting in the dark, hoping to hit something.

Wrong. And here's a report of a very simple model that captures a lot
of cloud complexity from this month's Physics Today

http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/minimalist_m...

You really don't have clue.

"Equations inspired by population-dynamics theory MAY help explain
drizzles, downpours, and disappearing clouds."

"Although clouds’ complex dynamics affect long-term climate trends—
they play a part in determining Earth’s albedo and rainfall
distribution—most climate models gloss over them."

Hilarious.

James Arthur

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sep 28, 5:24 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Looks like the coward option, then.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen  

Keep dreaming.

Dan                                    
         

 

[NT]

On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Lets get a reality check here. No 3rd world country is going to even
contemplate instituting a plan that costs trillions.


NT

 

[Raveninghorde]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 22, 5:23 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Super grids and energy security are incompatible.

The Russkies shut off gas to parts of Europe every winter.  Why would
anyone want to rely even more on power from unstable areas of the
world?

And without super grids ithe idea is a bust. Most of Northern Europe
was without wind last December. So 50% of energy gone in mid winter.
Lots of fun.

If you were paying more attention, you might have noted that the
Desertec project envisages a super-grid coupling solar thermal plants
in the Sahara to Germany. A shortage of wind over northern Europe
could presumably be made up with electricity generated further south.

Anyway there is plenty of shale gas out there who needs renewables?

Anybody with enough sense to understand the scientific case for not
burning much more fossil carbon. Not you, obviously.

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=2102&content_id=CNBP_028300&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=5c5d5a58-d353-490c-a2b1-498a7f5ff04c

/quote

Summary
New technology that combines production of electricity with
capture of carbon dioxide could make billions of barrels
of oil shale — now regarded as off-limits because of the
huge amounts of carbon dioxide released in its production
— available as an energy source. That’s the conclusion
of a report on “electricity production with in situ carbon
capture” (EPICC) in ACS’ journal Energy & Fuels.

/end quote

Seems a darn sight better idea than wind, solar or biofuel.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 29, 4:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Lets get a reality check here. No 3rd world country is going to even
contemplate instituting a plan that costs trillions.

Third world countries don't need trillions of dollars worth of power
planet, and aren't responsible for any significant portion of the CO2
we are injecting itno the atmosphere. Once the first world has worked
out how to build renewable energy generators in volume and got the
price down by the usual economies of scale, the third world will do
their usual trick of taking advantage of the pioneering work done
elsewhere.

Third world countries aren't enthusiastic about having to import
steadily more expensive fossil carbon to keep their power plants
running. Give them an alternative and they will go for it.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 29, 1:02 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 28, 1:22 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 28, 2:09 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 6:26 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 12:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 3:18 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals.

Dramatically wrong. The split dates back to the 1880s, and was
motivated by the proto-communists desire to assign a "leading role" to
political activists, while the socialists remained wedded to democracy

It was a joke Bill.

Really? Pretty much everything you post reflect a deeply distorted
view of the world, so it's hard to identify which absurd proposition
should not be taken seriously.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property--tax those
richies!  Pass this bill!  Pass this bill!  (Ooops, wandered there,
didn't we?)

The distinguishing feature of communism is the leading role of the
communist party, who get to control all the property, and have a
depressingly human tendency to hog the benefits that devolve from the
various sorts of property. It sets up an oligarchy.

grin>  (hint: Google my 1st sentence.)

"The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals."

generates zero hits. Unsurprisingly, since it is nonsense, and only
comical if you know enough to appreciate the difference between the
current Chinese politcal system and full-blown capitalism.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 29, 4:02 am, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 28, 5:24 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Looks like the coward option, then. 

Keep dreaming.

Hypothesising plausible motives for your behaviour isn't dreaming. You
won't be provoked into providing further information, so you are
clearly happy to live with the situation where characterisation as a
cautious ignoramus is plausible, and don't want to run the risk of
providing evidence that might further confirm this point of view.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
   

 

On Sep 29, 4:16 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 1:02 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:



On Sep 28, 1:22 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 28, 2:09 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 6:26 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 12:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 3:18 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals.

Dramatically wrong. The split dates back to the 1880s, and was
motivated by the proto-communists desire to assign a "leading role" to
political activists, while the socialists remained wedded to democracy

It was a joke Bill.

Really? Pretty much everything you post reflect a deeply distorted
view of the world, so it's hard to identify which absurd proposition
should not be taken seriously.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property--tax those
richies!  Pass this bill!  Pass this bill!  (Ooops, wandered there,
didn't we?)

The distinguishing feature of communism is the leading role of the
communist party, who get to control all the property, and have a
depressingly human tendency to hog the benefits that devolve from the
various sorts of property. It sets up an oligarchy.

grin>  (hint: Google my 1st sentence.)

"The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals."

generates zero hits. Unsurprisingly, since it is nonsense, and only
comical if you know enough to appreciate the difference between the
current Chinese politcal system and full-blown capitalism.

You're so literal it's amazing. I thought I gave a pretty good hint
directly under the passage in question.

Here--
"The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

I'd have thought you'd recognize it instantly, without the prodding.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[NT]

On Sep 29, 9:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 4:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power....

Lets get a reality check here. No 3rd world country is going to even
contemplate instituting a plan that costs trillions.

Third world countries don't need trillions of dollars worth of power
planet, and aren't responsible for any significant portion of the CO2
we are injecting itno the atmosphere. Once the first world has worked
out how to build renewable energy generators in volume and got the
price down by the usual economies of scale, the third world will do
their usual trick of taking advantage of the pioneering work done
elsewhere.

Third world countries aren't enthusiastic about having to import
steadily more expensive fossil carbon to keep their power plants
running. Give them an alternative and they will go for it.

I've yet to be convinced that these alt power sources will prove
cheaper than coal etc when mass produced.


NT

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sep 29, 4:23 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Hypothesising plausible motives for your behaviour isn't dreaming. You
won't be provoked into providing further information, so you are
clearly happy to live with the situation where characterisation as a
cautious ignoramus is plausible, and don't want to run the risk of
providing evidence that might further confirm this point of view.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Whatever you want to believe.  Keep dreaming. I do not have any need
to be validated by you. Reading your posts is a humorous diversion,
they are not anything to be taken seriously.

Dan   

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 29, 11:11 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman









bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On Sep 22, 5:23 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 07:29:07 -0700 (PDT),BillSloman

bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power....

Super grids and energy security are incompatible.

The Russkies shut off gas to parts of Europe every winter. Why would
anyone want to rely even more on power from unstable areas of the
world?

And without super grids ithe idea is a bust. Most of Northern Europe
was without wind last December. So 50% of energy gone in mid winter.
Lots of fun.

If you were paying more attention, you might have noted that the
Desertec project envisages a super-grid coupling solar thermal plants
in the Sahara to Germany. A shortage of wind over northern Europe
could presumably be made up with electricity generated further south.

Anyway there is plenty of shale gas out there who needs renewables?

Anybody with enough sense to understand the scientific case for not
burning much more fossil carbon. Not you, obviously.

http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=P....

/quote

Summary
New technology that combines production of electricity with
capture of carbon dioxide could make billions of barrels
of oil shale now regarded as off-limits because of the
huge amounts of carbon dioxide released in its production
available as an energy source. That s the conclusion
of a report on electricity production with in situ carbon
capture (EPICC) in ACS journal Energy & Fuels.

/end quote

Seems a darn sight better idea than wind, solar or biofuel.

Seen the costs? Carbon capture is expensive.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 29, 11:18 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 29, 9:08 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 29, 4:59 am, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:

On Sep 22, 3:29 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

IEEE Spectrum seems to have some people who share my enthusiasm for
the change-over, and are rather better placed to calculate the
implications

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/wind-water-and-solar-power...

Lets get a reality check here. No 3rd world country is going to even
contemplate instituting a plan that costs trillions.

Third world countries don't need trillions of dollars worth of power
planet, and aren't responsible for any significant portion of the CO2
we are injecting itno the atmosphere. Once the first world has worked
out how to build renewable energy generators in volume and got the
price down by the usual economies of scale, the third world will do
their usual trick of taking advantage of the pioneering work done
elsewhere.

Third world countries aren't enthusiastic about having to import
steadily more expensive fossil carbon to keep their power plants
running. Give them an alternative and they will go for it.

I've yet to be convinced that these alt power sources will prove
cheaper than coal etc when mass produced.

There's a finite - if large - amount of coal in the ground. The deeper
we have to dig, the more expensive it gets. In the long term, it's a
no-brainer.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 29, 10:49 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 29, 4:16 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:









On Sep 29, 1:02 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 28, 1:22 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 28, 2:09 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 6:26 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sep 27, 12:41 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Sep 27, 3:18 am,BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
Can you tell me the difference between socialism and communism? Extra
points for telling me when you think the two movements split apart,
and why.

The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals.

Dramatically wrong. The split dates back to the 1880s, and was
motivated by the proto-communists desire to assign a "leading role" to
political activists, while the socialists remained wedded to democracy

It was a joke Bill.

Really? Pretty much everything you post reflect a deeply distorted
view of the world, so it's hard to identify which absurd proposition
should not be taken seriously.

The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property--tax those
richies!  Pass this bill!  Pass this bill!  (Ooops, wandered there,
didn't we?)

The distinguishing feature of communism is the leading role of the
communist party, who get to control all the property, and have a
depressingly human tendency to hog the benefits that devolve from the
various sorts of property. It sets up an oligarchy.

grin>  (hint: Google my 1st sentence.)

"The movements split when the USSR collapsed and China turned to
capitalism, surging ahead of its former rivals."

generates zero hits. Unsurprisingly, since it is nonsense, and only
comical if you know enough to appreciate the difference between the
current Chinese politcal system and full-blown capitalism.

You're so literal it's amazing.  I thought I gave a pretty good hint
directly under the passage in question.

Here--
"The distinguishing feature of communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/c...

I'd have thought you'd recognize it instantly, without the prodding.

Strange as it may seem, I'm not all that familiar with the communist
manifesto. It isn't as if what Marx cobbled together in 1848 is the
final word on socialist ideology, and Marx himself, while a towering
genius, was not known for getting the details right. He's more like
Linus Pauling than - say - Richard Feynman.

Teh manifesto certainly doesn't have a lot to do with modern
communism, which split off from mainstream socialism around 1889 on
the question of the "leading role of the party", which most socialist
regarded as a dangerous diversion from democratic principles.

The "Communist Manifesto" certainly doesn't have much to do with the
kind of communism American rightist use to frighten each other.
Russian Communism seems to have adopted the name to emphasise their
descent from Marx, but the kind of communism Marx was contemplating in
1848 had more to do with communes than the union of the soviet
socialist republics.

As usual, your "joke" reflects a very imperfect understanding of the
material you thought that you were joking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sep 29, 2:24 pm, "dcas...@krl.org" <dcas...@krl.org> wrote:

On Sep 29, 4:23 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

Hypothesising plausible motives for your behaviour isn't dreaming. You
won't be provoked into providing further information, so you are
clearly happy to live with the situation where characterisation as a
cautious ignoramus is plausible, and don't want to run the risk of
providing evidence that might further confirm this point of view.

Whatever you want to believe.  Keep dreaming.  I do not have any need
to be validated by you.  Reading your posts is a humorous diversion,
they are not anything to be taken seriously.

You do seem to feel the need for some kind of validation - this ping-
pong has been going on for quite a while if it's just of sense of
humour that's involved.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen 

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sep 29, 9:53 am, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:

You do seem to feel the need for some kind of validation - this ping-
pong has been going on for quite a while if it's just of sense of
humour that's involved.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen 

Sorry but validation from you would be most upsetting to me.

Dan