Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And the connection here with electronics is .......... ???I do seem to be free of certain delusions Americans have about the
perfection of their electoral system and their health care systems;
I need to reclaim one of those (or is it a 465B ?) from a client I left itbill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote
Of course it is good, but mind-rippingly good, insanely priced,
perfect-out-the-door good?
Amazing, isn't it? Can you think back, way back, I know it's a stretch,
back when you were doing electronics, what your impressions were of your
first Tektronix 475? One of the best instruments ever, perfectly good off
the shelf, and worth a bundle, brand new.
The only one with fantasies (and they are getting increasingly extreme) is YOU !Eeyore wrote:
James Arthur wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
John Larkin's claims about his gear don't have the same kind of built-
in quality control.
That is a baseless slander.
All I had to do was read your reply James at the botton of the page, to KNOW it
was a post of Sloman's. What is the matter with the man ?
Some residual contact with reality? I'm not less scpetical about John
Larkin's fantasies tha I am about yours?
I (the company) sold a prototype to a client. We replaced it with a productionEven so, the evidence suggests that nobody gets everything right, every time.
You're talking evasive crap.Eeyore wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
The data I'm accepting has passed through peer-review
Like Mann's ?
Bwahahahahahahaaaha !
Graham is indulging in the fallacy of the excluded middle.
SEEK TREATMENT NOW !Eeyore wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
From my point of view, it is Graham's pretensions to knowledge that
are really bizarre. It is as if he aspired to compete in formula one
riding a unicycle.
You ARE indeed quite MAD. It's time you sought treatment. Your detachment
from reality accelerates every single day.
Possibly. But I've got a long way to go before I'm as detached as the
average psychiatrist, let alone you or Jim Thompson, and I'd have to
be much further out of touch with reality than I am now to be silly
enough to consider taking your advice.
See, he can achieve 100% when he tries.bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
John Larkin wrote.
You don't work at all.
Much as I'd like to.
But you DON'T. I'm beginning to wonder now if your job applications have failed
not because of your age but your attitude.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:08:58 +0100, Eeyore
rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
John Larkin wrote.
You don't work at all.
Much as I'd like to.
But you DON'T. I'm beginning to wonder now if your job applications have failed
not because of your age but your attitude.
See, he can achieve 100% when he tries.
John
Why are you attributing a John Larkin quote to bill.sloman?bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:a6469adc-3512-40af-b680-f96dee97906b@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Of course it is good, but mind-rippingly good, insanely priced,
perfect-out-the-door good?
Amazing, isn't it? Can you think back, way back, I know it's a stretch,
back when you were doing electronics, what your impressions were of your
first Tektronix 475? One of the best instruments ever, perfectly good off
the shelf, and worth a bundle, brand new.
I have a sister who is basically a psycho bitch from hell. She can't holdbill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
John Larkin wrote.
You don't work at all.
Much as I'd like to.
But you DON'T. I'm beginning to wonder now if your job applications have failed
not because of your age but your attitude.
OOpps!!On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:47:18 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
You didn't have Bill Sloman in mind did you ?
inThe most reliable sign of sanity is doing the same thing while expecting
^
Cheers!different results.
No, you had it right the first time.On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:40:12 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:47:18 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote:
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.
You didn't have Bill Sloman in mind did you ?
OOpps!!
The most reliable sign of sanity is doing the same thing while expecting
^
in
different results.
Cheers!
Rich
You're just *beginning* to wonder?bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
John Larkin wrote.
You don't work at all.
Much as I'd like to.
But you DON'T. I'm beginning to wonder now if your job applications have failed
not because of your age but your attitude.
I've recently read it.Wasn't that the point of the hockey curve papers, i.e they had not been
peer-reviewed, but merely published and published with a very murky
history.
Steve McIntyre was peer reviewing Mann's work. I think he smelt a rat and
that's why he asked for the raw data which he was refused using dubious
excuses relating to copyright issues.
Somewhere there you'll find the whole story.
Now, the question in my mind is whether someone has redone theirhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Foucaults pendulumOn Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:45:45 -0700, bill.sloman wrote:
This doesn't mean that one discards every paper ever published as
unreliable - the bulk of the published papers on anthropogenic global
warming form a coherent and self-consistent mass of evidence
supporting the hypothesis.
If that self-consistent mass is based on a popular vote, then it isn't
science.
Graham doesn't know enough about science to understand this,
Or isn't indoctrinated enough?
Lets face it, when the pope said that the sun revolved around the earth,
just about every contemporary "scientist" agreed that this was true.
What is different now?
Since you snipped the substance of my argument, you'd be thebill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
The data I'm accepting has passed through peer-review
Like Mann's ?
Bwahahahahahahaaaha !
Graham is indulging in the fallacy of the excluded middle.
You're talking evasive crap.
The knobs weren't as robust as they might have been - I had to replacebill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in message
news:a6469adc-3512-40af-b680-f96dee97906b@o40g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
Of course it is good, but mind-rippingly good, insanely priced,
perfect-out-the-door good?
Amazing, isn't it? Can you think back, way back, I know it's a stretch,
back when you were doing electronics, what your impressions were of your
first Tektronix 475? One of the best instruments ever, perfectly good off
the shelf, and worth a bundle, brand new.
Whereas Graham-I-know-more-about-climatology-than-the-IPCC hasbill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
John Larkin wrote.
You don't work at all.
Much as I'd like to.
But you DON'T. I'm beginning to wonder now if your job applications have failed
not because of your age but your attitude.
So I suddenly turned into a psychotic bastard when I turned 60? AndOn Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:08:58 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
John Larkin wrote.
You don't work at all.
Much as I'd like to.
But you DON'T. I'm beginning to wonder now if your job applications have failed
not because of your age but your attitude.
I have a sister who is basically a psycho bitch from hell. She can't hold
a job, and of course it's always because everybody else at the company is
an asshole.
When people ask her, "So, what's the common element in all of these jobs?"
she gets hostile.
Those people are better left to their own devices, I believe.
SEE A DOCTOR ! Take a psychoanalytical test etc.Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
John Larkin wrote.
You don't work at all.
Much as I'd like to.
But you DON'T. I'm beginning to wonder now if your job applications have failed
not because of your age but your attitude.
I have a sister who is basically a psycho bitch from hell. She can't hold
a job, and of course it's always because everybody else at the company is
an asshole.
When people ask her, "So, what's the common element in all of these jobs?"
she gets hostile.
Those people are better left to their own devices, I believe.
So I suddenly turned into a psychotic bastard when I turned 60? And
only with potential employers?
There are more pausible hypotheses.