Time to Upgrade ?:-}

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 03:59:30 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2015 05:44:27 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:54:04 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:46:40 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:35 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
pommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:16:52 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:02:21 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:

DecadentLoser is lower pond-scum than Sloman >:-}

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson gets it wrong again.

---
If he got it wrong, then you must be lower pond-scum than DLUNO.

You are taking Jim Thompson too seriously. Nobody who posts here can be "pond scum" - not even AlwaysWrong - and trying to set up a single linear ranking system is equally silly.

Not that I can find any ranking system that puts DecandentLinuxUserNumeroUno far off the bottom of the pile - he doesn't make many typos, but that's pretty much all that can be said in his favour.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:07:48 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:40:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:


[snip]

Please stop feeding the trolls.

...Jim Thompson


Whenever you see one of those long Sloman/Fields/AlwaysWrong
sequences, just ignore the whole sorry mess. It's always the same
geezer bickering.

Aww...

Poor baby wannabe Queen of USENET wants to be the only one to have any
fun here.

John Fields

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 07:47:17 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2015 08:31:06 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 16 August 2015 18:39:52 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

<snip>

Your attempt to disregard this context and assert that the word could only mean a resonant circuit is a feeble and unwarranted joke.

Nonsense.

Do you want to know why?

Curious as I am about your cognitive defects, and how they lead you to make this defective claim, I doubt if the rest of the group needs your rationalisation. We already get a lot of nonsense to study, and more would be redundant.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 17 August 2015 08:31:06 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 16 August 2015 18:39:52 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

snip

It's not a single power transistor, it's a totem pole which can source
and sink enough current to drive decent loads.

For a very wimpy value of "decent load".

So you'd advocate driving a tank to the grocery store to pick up a
dozen eggs?

The 555 output can sink 10mA at 0.1V typ. 0.25V worst case. It can sink more current (and get hotter)if you can live with higher saturation voltages. There's a wide gap between that and any kind of "tank".

A "tank" is generally considered to be a resonant circuit due to its
ability to store energy for a time.

You take unwarranted liberties by trying to bend physics to your will.

The word "tank" does have a number of meanings, most of which can be disambiguated by context. From the context above it is clear that both you and I had been referring to a large armoured military vehicle.

---
Indeed, but my simile was chosen to show that, reductio ad absurdum,
what you maliciously chose to call a "wimpy load", wasn't,
contextually.

I think you missed that point since your rebuttal: "It can sink more
current (and get hotter)if you can live with higher saturation
voltages. There's a wide gap between that and any kind of "tank"",
seems more like unwitting agreement rather than informed dissent.
---

>Your attempt to disregard this context and assert that the word could only mean a resonant circuit is a feeble and unwarranted joke.

---
Nonsense.

Do you want to know why?

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:59:21 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 17 August 2015 05:44:27 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:54:04 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:46:40 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:35 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
pommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:16:52 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:02:21 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:


As a janitor

Go away, janitor... You are not wanted, nor is your pathetic tripe
needed.

Answer the question, imbecile. Post a design of yours.

Back in the seventies, they had "Janitor in a Drum".

You are "Janitor in a Newsgroup".
You are an imbecile.

DecadentLoser is lower pond-scum than Sloman >:-}

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson gets it wrong again.

---
If he got it wrong, then you must be lower pond-scum than DLUNO.

John Fields

I think I am supposed to say thanks. I guess I am thinking pond scum,
perhaps. At least I am working in the electronics industry in a design
capacity. Though I don't know if that puts me higher on the totem poe
or lower... and yes, I do know the real difference.

Donald Trump is rich and I guess he thinks that equates him with
superheroes, because he called himself Batman.

I guess he'll shoot himself in the head, much less the foot soon
enough. The idiot wants to do away with natural born birthright
citizenship now too.

He's what I would call "dead in the water". Just like Sloman.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:07:48 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> Gave us:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:40:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:


[snip]

Please stop feeding the trolls.

...Jim Thompson


Whenever you see one of those long Sloman/Fields/AlwaysWrong
sequences, just ignore the whole sorry mess. It's always the same
geezer bickering.

You're just a pissed off little bitch because accurate descriptions of
you and your pathetic behavior get iterated often.

 

[DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUn]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:47:08 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
snip

The word "tank" does have a number of meanings, most
of which can be disambiguated by context. From the
context above it is clear that both you and I had been
referring to a large armoured military vehicle.

---
Indeed, but my simile was chosen to show that, reductio ad absurdum,
what you maliciously chose to call a "wimpy load", wasn't,
contextually.

I think you missed that point since your rebuttal: "It can sink more
current (and get hotter)if you can live with higher saturation
voltages. There's a wide gap between that and any kind of "tank"",
seems more like unwitting agreement rather than informed dissent.
---

Your attempt to disregard this context and assert that
the word could only mean a resonant circuit is a feeble
and unwarranted joke.

---
Nonsense.

Do you want to know why?

+1

Flawless. Plus one!

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:37:24 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:07:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:40:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:


[snip]

Please stop feeding the trolls.

...Jim Thompson


Whenever you see one of those long Sloman/Fields/AlwaysWrong
sequences, just ignore the whole sorry mess. It's always the same
geezer bickering.

Aww...

Poor baby wannabe Queen of USENET wants to be the only one to have any
fun here.

John Fields

You're having fun?

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:13:20 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:07:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> Gave us:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:40:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:


[snip]

Please stop feeding the trolls.

...Jim Thompson


Whenever you see one of those long Sloman/Fields/AlwaysWrong
sequences, just ignore the whole sorry mess. It's always the same
geezer bickering.

You're just a pissed off little bitch because accurate descriptions of
you and your pathetic behavior get iterated often.

Whatever.

Enjoy.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Jim Thompson wrote:

I'm getting the general impression that I should avoid 64-bit to make
sure that my legacy programs will still work. Is that correct?

It appears you already have a 64 bit system (AMD Athlon 64). It's the 32 bit
(and 16 bit?) backwards compatibility you have to worry about. And that's as
much a problem of the O/S no longer supporting it as most x86 compatible
h/w.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailtoaul@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. " - Tacitus

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:03:11 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
<DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:59:21 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, 17 August 2015 05:44:27 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:54:04 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:46:40 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:35 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
pommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:16:52 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:02:21 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:


As a janitor

Go away, janitor... You are not wanted, nor is your pathetic tripe
needed.

Answer the question, imbecile. Post a design of yours.

Back in the seventies, they had "Janitor in a Drum".

You are "Janitor in a Newsgroup".
You are an imbecile.

DecadentLoser is lower pond-scum than Sloman >:-}

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson gets it wrong again.

---
If he got it wrong, then you must be lower pond-scum than DLUNO.

John Fields

I think I am supposed to say thanks. I guess I am thinking pond scum,
perhaps. At least I am working in the electronics industry in a design
capacity. Though I don't know if that puts me higher on the totem poe
or lower... and yes, I do know the real difference.

---
No offense intended, I was just commenting on the BS from BS.
---

Donald Trump is rich and I guess he thinks that equates him with
superheroes, because he called himself Batman.

I guess he'll shoot himself in the head, much less the foot soon
enough. The idiot wants to do away with natural born birthright
citizenship now too.

He's what I would call "dead in the water". Just like Sloman.

---
Trump, at least, can float.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 16:30:11 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 15:37:24 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:07:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:40:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:


[snip]

Please stop feeding the trolls.

...Jim Thompson


Whenever you see one of those long Sloman/Fields/AlwaysWrong
sequences, just ignore the whole sorry mess. It's always the same
geezer bickering.

Aww...

Poor baby wannabe Queen of USENET wants to be the only one to have any
fun here.

John Fields

You're having fun?

---
I see that against your best intentions, your weak will has led you
astray and you've decided to join the fray.

Yes, of course I'm having fun.

I love a challenge, and why else would I spend some of the time
allocated to my life trying to elevate the ignorati to at least some
modicum of awareness?

John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:21:39 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 19:13:20 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 12:07:48 -0700, John Larkin
jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> Gave us:

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:40:28 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:


[snip]

Please stop feeding the trolls.

...Jim Thompson


Whenever you see one of those long Sloman/Fields/AlwaysWrong
sequences, just ignore the whole sorry mess. It's always the same
geezer bickering.

You're just a pissed off little bitch because accurate descriptions of
you and your pathetic behavior get iterated often.

Whatever.

Enjoy.

---
There's nothing of substance in your reply.

John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 03:59:30 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2015 05:44:27 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:54:04 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:46:40 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:35 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
pommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:16:52 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:02:21 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:

DecadentLoser is lower pond-scum than Sloman >:-}

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson gets it wrong again.

---
If he got it wrong, then you must be lower pond-scum than DLUNO.

You are taking Jim Thompson too seriously.

---
No, what's really happening is that you're trying to evade your own
gaffe with subterfuge.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:44:34 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 07:47:17 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2015 08:31:06 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 16 August 2015 18:39:52 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

snip

Your attempt to disregard this context and assert that the word could only mean a resonant circuit is a feeble and unwarranted joke.

Nonsense.

Do you want to know why?

Curious as I am about your cognitive defects, and how they lead you to make this defective claim, I doubt if the rest of the group needs your rationalisation. We already get a lot of nonsense to study, and more would be redundant.

---
More gobbledygook.

You make claims for which you have no evidence and then invoke
imaginary groupspeak as precedent.

If you were at all concerned about the group's wishes then I suspect
you'd stop posting here or, at the very least, get honest.

However, since such seems not to be your wont I can only conclude that
your invocation of imaginary groupspeak is designed to justify hiding
your anathema to even constructive criticism.

John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 20:46:46 -0700, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
<paul@hovnanian.com> wrote:

>The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. " - Tacitus

---
Indeed. The US has about 1% of its population behind bars.

John Fields

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 16:18:03 UTC+10, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:07:43 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> Gave us:

As usual,

As usual, you demonstrate that you really are not worth anyone's time,
as any time spent on conversing with you is truly wasted time.

AlwaysWrong in vintage form. Since he shows no sign of understanding what conversation involves, it's a particularly fine example of his contribution to the group.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 07:32:09 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 20:58:56 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 11:36:02 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:45:07 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 04:43:25 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 03:59:30 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2015 05:44:27 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:54:04 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:46:40 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:35 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
pommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:16:52 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:02:21 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:

DecadentLoser is lower pond-scum than Sloman >:-}

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson gets it wrong again.

---
If he got it wrong, then you must be lower pond-scum than DLUNO.

You are taking Jim Thompson too seriously.

No, what's really happening is that you're trying to evade your own
gaffe with subterfuge.

First identify what you think is a gaffe. You do have a habit of misunderstanding stuff that has been posted, and going off about what you think it means.

If you're at all well-versed in the nuances of the English language,
which you claim to be, the gaffe should be embarrassingly obvious to
you.

Sadly, you don't happen to be well-versed in the nuances of the English language, and what may strike you as a gaffe probably isn't anything of the sort. Be more specific, or crawl back in your burrow.

I think it is, and you're just vying for time, throwing out vindictive
nonsense hoping that some miracle will come along save you from having
to admit to your folly.

Well, you would like to think that, wouldn't you.

I do, in fact, think that and actually, it's a fait accompli.

But a delusion, nonetheless.

Also, one of the rules - rather than nuances - of conventional written
English is that an interrogatory sentence be followed by an eroteme,
for which you've substituted a period. Surely just an oversight, but
for someone who professes to be so proficient in manipulating the
vagaries of the language, just another gaffe.

If you say so.

Put up or shut up.

Oh, my...

There's certainly nothing quick or subtle about that crack, so maybe
we're finally getting down to what you're all about, which seems to be
nothing more than an intellectual bully.

It's scarcely being an intellectual bully to ask you to identify the "gaffe" that you think you are referring to.

The use of the word "eroteme" when you meant a question mark might be an example of intellectual bullying, if it wasn't in fact an instance of intellectual failure on your part.

The sentence in question might look like a question to the ill-informed, but was, in fact, a declarative statement, effectively quoting a certain Mandy Rice-Davies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandy_Rice-Davies

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 08:04:40 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:07:43 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 12:07:05 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 16:59:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 05:19:38 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:44:34 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 07:47:17 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:42:41 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2015 08:31:06 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 05:44:35 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, 16 August 2015 18:39:52 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

snip

Your attempt to disregard this context and assert that the word could only mean a resonant circuit is a feeble and unwarranted joke.

Nonsense.

Do you want to know why?

Curious as I am about your cognitive defects, and how they lead you to make this defective claim, I doubt if the rest of the group needs your rationalisation. We already get a lot of nonsense to study, and more would be redundant.

Your doubts seem to be predicated on your postulation that you're the
spokesman for - and insulated by - the group but, with no substantial
voter base, your claims are groundless.

As usual, your imperfect comprehension of complex sentences has let you down again. I can have whatever doubts I like without claiming in any way to be any kind of spokesman for the group.

True enough about your doubts, but when you invoke the "we" and then
go on to make unwarranted statements based on that imaginary
association, your premise was flawed.

I am a member of the group, am I not?

The group is perfectly at liberty to disagree with me, and other members
could have implored you to bore them to tears with pointless expositions
of defective comprehension. I haven't seen any sign of it yet,
but the thread has only got to ten pages on Google, so there's plenty of
room for it to expand even more.

My guess is that the begging won't happen since I'm pretty sure that
most folks smile when you're getting sliced up.

A charming image. Some of our resident psychopaths might, if I got sliced up, which isn't what's happening here, despite your fond misapprehensions.

Bottom line is you just want to dodge the question because either a
yes or a no will put you in your place.

Bottom line is that you haven't put up a question for me to respond to. Pity about that - it's a bit redundant to dodge a non-question.

The question was: "Do you want to know why?" and, in view of your
machinations, you've been too afraid to answer.

It's not fear of the answer as such, rather fear of the utter tedium of having cope with yet one more of your fatuous misapprehensions.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 08:11:18 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 21:30:15 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 12:22:18 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 17:02:14 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 07:25:22 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 13:43:18 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:30:50 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 03:59:30 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 16:44:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Monday, 17 August 2015 05:44:27 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 18:54:04 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 09:46:40 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2015 10:28:35 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
pommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:16:52 -0400, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno
DLU1@DecadentLinuxUser.org> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 18:02:21 +0100, Pomegranate Bastard
PommyB@dsl.pipex.com> Gave us:

DecadentLoser is lower pond-scum than Sloman >:-}

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson gets it wrong again.

If he got it wrong, then you must be lower pond-scum than DLUNO..

You are taking Jim Thompson too seriously.

No, what's really happening is that you're trying to evade your own
gaffe with subterfuge.

I guess I was wrong... Sloman is lowest >:-}

Jim's guesswork is no more reliable than his ostensibly rational
conclusions.

If you are out of touch with reality, you do end up looking very silly.

Indeed, and Jim has decades of experience in bringing fantasy into
reality with his world-renowned designs.

Admittedly the ones I had the misfortune to use were renowned for being
cranky.

A poor workman blames his tools.

Which dates from a time when he should have made better ones. I selected better tools at the first opportunity - which came remarkably quickly, so presumably any number of other workers had the same perceptions.

Jim hasn't produced an NE555 or anything remotely as popular.

You, on the other hand, have little to show for your life but sour
grapes.

Some patents, a published paper or two (one with 19 citations, though at least one of the authors who cited it hadn't read it carefully enough - earning me another minor publication). There are definitely some sour grapes in there, but fermentation is an art.

Vinegar isn't wine.

Too true, but it has it's uses. How come you produce so much of it?

It's not a particularly impressive CV but since it includes places like EMI Central Research (the closest the UK ever came to Bell Labs) it probably trumps yours. Jim's ideas about academic prestige let him boast about giving lectures at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (after Barry Gilbert found out what a joke it was and pulled out) so he hasn't done all that well either. He seems to have excelled himself in getting into MIT, and went downhill thereafter.

Like I said, sour grapes.

Still trumps yours.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney