Time to Upgrade ?:-}

[John Fields]

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.

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.
---

>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.

John Fields

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 11:34:39 UTC+10, M Philbrook wrote:

In article <bmp9tadgphri4ra1fqgi4u5tcm7q4v9162@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

<snip>

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.

Lets correct that last part, remove the "intellectual".

The closest Jamie gets to judging matters intellectual is using his spell checker to make sure that he has spelled the word correctly.

If he hadn't been stupid enough to start drinking raw milk in the first place, he might have had enough intellect left now to make that kind of judgement.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Fields]

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.
---

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 pelnty 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.
---

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.

 

[John Fields]

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 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.
---

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.
---

>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.

John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 01:48:30 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
But then, neither do you show the understanding you espouse since
you're not as interested in interchange as you are in domination.

John Fields

 

[M Philbrook]

In article <bmp9tadgphri4ra1fqgi4u5tcm7q4v9162@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

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.

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.
---

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.

Lets correct that last part, remove the "intellectual".

 

[M Philbrook]

In article <d6d3d1d7-becd-4854-86bf-82811efd629b@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 11:34:39 UTC+10, M Philbrook wrote:
In article <bmp9tadgphri4ra1fqgi4u5tcm7q4v9162@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

snip

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.

Lets correct that last part, remove the "intellectual".

The closest Jamie gets to judging matters intellectual is using his spell checker to make sure that he has spelled the word correctly.

If he hadn't been stupid enough to start drinking raw milk in the first place, he might have had enough intellect left now to make that kind of judgement.

There you go again, you can't even get the correcet JAMIE in sight.


I drank raw milk when I was a kid, I am still here and I never got sick
from it. To bad it didn't effect you!.

P.S.

One should check their own spelling from time to time.


Jamie

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 11:52:00 UTC+10, M Philbrook wrote:

In article <d6d3d1d7-becd-4854-86bf-82811efd629b@googlegroups.com>,
bill.sloman@gmail.com says...
On Thursday, 20 August 2015 11:34:39 UTC+10, M Philbrook wrote:
In article <bmp9tadgphri4ra1fqgi4u5tcm7q4v9162@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

snip

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.

Lets correct that last part, remove the "intellectual".

The closest Jamie gets to judging matters intellectual is using his spell checker to make sure that he has spelled the word correctly.

If he hadn't been stupid enough to start drinking raw milk in the first place, he might have had enough intellect left now to make that kind of judgement.

There you go again, you can't even get the correct JAMIE in sight.

Who cares? One Jamie is very like another - at least in this context.

I drank raw milk when I was a kid, I am still here and I never got sick
from it.

You may think so.

> To bad it didn't effect you!.

I was never exposed to raw milk. Tasmania had standards for that. They were initially a bit weak on stopping dairy cattle grazing on brassicas, which probably had something to do with the relatively high incidence of goitre (which went up when free school milk became available, and went down again when the penny dropped - I thought it tasted horrible, and didn't drink it, which may have been wise).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 2:09:18 AM UTC+2, Tim Williams wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message news:1m8jrva.a8x8fg1pi1l3gN%pippo2@disney.com...
Xeon.
[..]
Is there even *any* SPICE that's GPU-enabled, yet?

NGSPICE has an experimental GPU-enabled fork. Don't know how good
it is as I don't have the hardware, but I am positive it works.

NGSPICE with the openmp compile option runs *transistor*
models on multiple cores. That runs 2 to 3 times faster
in my personal tests (and the mcnc benchmarks). Unfortunately,
there are clear technical reasons why that doesn't work
for other models.

> LTSpice is SMP, which is, sad to say: decades ahead of the curve.

With LTspice the cores run at full speed, but the combined
result is hardly faster than a properly compiled NGSPICE.

Considering everyone else is stuck in 1981, or whenever it was
XSPICE was released. NI/Multisim, Altium, PSpice(?), take your
pick... (NgSpice?) They're all based on that one (free,
coincidentally!) SPICE core.

SPICE being free attracted programmers that improved it.

Kind of a bizarre inversion, historically speaking: EDA
and CAD used to be the prime driver behind top-of-the-line
workstations. 'Course, they cost $100k back then, too.
It's been my experience that the mid-level software
companies (~$10k/license and down) have been strangely
resistant to any kind of advancement or refinement of
this sort.

The hardware has advanced to a state where even a computer
illiterate will have a system that is only 2 or 3 times
slower than the finest money can buy (apart from dedicated
hardware). It is now up to the programmers to unlock the
power of parallel computing.

-marcel

 

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 2:09:18 AM UTC+2, Tim Williams wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message news:1m8jrva.a8x8fg1pi1l3gN%pippo2@disney.com...
Xeon.
[..]
Is there even *any* SPICE that's GPU-enabled, yet?

NGSPICE has an experimental GPU-enabled fork. Don't know how good
it is as I don't have the hardware, but I am positive it works.

NGSPICE with the openmp compile option runs *transistor*
models on multiple cores. That runs 2 to 3 times faster
in my personal tests (and the mcnc benchmarks). Unfortunately,
there are clear technical reasons why that doesn't work
for other models.

> LTSpice is SMP, which is, sad to say: decades ahead of the curve.

With LTspice the cores run at full speed, but the combined
result is hardly faster than a properly compiled NGSPICE.

Considering everyone else is stuck in 1981, or whenever it was
XSPICE was released. NI/Multisim, Altium, PSpice(?), take your
pick... (NgSpice?) They're all based on that one (free,
coincidentally!) SPICE core.

SPICE being free attracted programmers that improved it.

Kind of a bizarre inversion, historically speaking: EDA
and CAD used to be the prime driver behind top-of-the-line
workstations. 'Course, they cost $100k back then, too.
It's been my experience that the mid-level software
companies (~$10k/license and down) have been strangely
resistant to any kind of advancement or refinement of
this sort.

The hardware has advanced to a state where even a computer
illiterate will have a system that is only 2 or 3 times
slower than the finest money can buy (apart from dedicated
hardware). It is now up to the programmers to unlock the
power of parallel computing.

-marcel

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:46:27 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
I only opt not to because you know very well what I'm referring to,
but you just pretend not to so that if I reply you'll just have
another stage to meaninglyless frolic on.
---

>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.

---
I prefer conciseness, so "eroteme" it is:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eroteme
---

>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.

---
To the better-informed, Davies' sentence: “Well (giggle) he would,
wouldn’t he?” was interrogative, as indicated by the eroteme and
properly punctuated by the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/19/mandy-rice-davies-fabled-player-british-scandal-profumo

John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:51:46 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

---
True enough, but that doesn't make your pretense at spokesmanship by
invoking opinion any less flawed or your dodging the question any less
obvious.
---

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.

---
Some wounds infict no immediate pain.
---

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.

---
It's no misapprehension that you dodge the question with a barrage of
distractions. It's also clear that it's apprehenesion in your camp
which keeps you from answering it.

John Fields

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:00:58 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
A poor workman blames the toolmaker.

At that time Jim was doing the best one could with what was available,
and if you weren't happy with it you should have jumped into the fray
and designed your own chips.

Others certainly did.
---

I selected better tools at the first opportunity
- which came remarkably quickly, so presumably any
number of other workers had the same perceptions.

---
Hindsight's 20-20 for Monday morning quarterbacks.
---

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

---
Then, with popularity being the criterion from your own point of view,
since you've contributed nothing coming even close to the popularity
of Thompson's or Camenzind's stuff you're below them on the food
chain.
---

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?

---
I use it to neutralize lyes.
---

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.

---
Paper tiger.

John Fields

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:47:46 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:00:58 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

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:
[snip].

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.

---
A poor workman blames the toolmaker.

At that time Jim was doing the best one could with what was available,
and if you weren't happy with it you should have jumped into the fray
and designed your own chips.

Others certainly did.
---

I selected better tools at the first opportunity
- which came remarkably quickly, so presumably any
number of other workers had the same perceptions.

---
Hindsight's 20-20 for Monday morning quarterbacks.
---

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

---
Then, with popularity being the criterion from your own point of view,
since you've contributed nothing coming even close to the popularity
of Thompson's or Camenzind's stuff you're below them on the food
chain.
---

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?

---
I use it to neutralize lyes.
---


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.

---
Paper tiger.

John Fields

Slowman is a _weenie-sized_ schmuck.

My MC1530/31 still sells at high volume 53 years after it was
designed.... it's the most stable OpAmp _ever_... and slew rate up
there with the best of today... ask the military

And, at my old age, I'll toot my own horn... my admission to MIT was
funded by MIT alumni who still followed the MERIT approach to awarding
scholarships... and I graduated from the MIT EE HONORS (VI-B) program
.... there were only six of us in the Class of 1962.

Slowman is terrible at throwing insults... but I guess that's a result
of mental insufficiency... which he demonstrates daily >:-}

Sorry I can't be more explicit... wonderful brunch... wonderful wine
(which I shouldn't be drinking, but what the hell... so I'll die at 87
instead of 90 >:-}

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:44:58 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 11:34:39 UTC+10, M Philbrook wrote:
In article <bmp9tadgphri4ra1fqgi4u5tcm7q4v9162@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

snip

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.

Lets correct that last part, remove the "intellectual".

The closest Jamie gets to judging matters intellectual is using his spell checker to make sure that he has spelled the word correctly.

---
Would that you'd do the same, but you toss your spelling - and
punctuation - and logical errors off as humorous asides while damning
everyone else for committing the same unforgivable acts.
---

>If he hadn't been stupid enough to start drinking raw milk in the first place, he might have had enough intellect left now to make that kind of judgement.

---
If raw milk isn't good for you in the first place, then perhaps
"stupidity" could be ameliorated to "ignorance", since you haven't yet
proved your case of his being suicidal.

Do you have any definitive hard data which you can use to prove your
case, or is this just more of your nonsense?

John Fields

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 16:19:28 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:44:58 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 20 August 2015 11:34:39 UTC+10, M Philbrook wrote:
In article <bmp9tadgphri4ra1fqgi4u5tcm7q4v9162@4ax.com>,
jfields@austininstruments.com says...

snip

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.

Lets correct that last part, remove the "intellectual".

The closest Jamie gets to judging matters intellectual is using his spell checker to make sure that he has spelled the word correctly.

---
Would that you'd do the same, but you toss your spelling - and
punctuation - and logical errors off as humorous asides while damning
everyone else for committing the same unforgivable acts.
---

If he hadn't been stupid enough to start drinking raw milk in the first place, he might have had enough intellect left now to make that kind of judgement.

---
If raw milk isn't good for you in the first place, then perhaps
"stupidity" could be ameliorated to "ignorance", since you haven't yet
proved your case of his being suicidal.

Do you have any definitive hard data which you can use to prove your
case, or is this just more of your nonsense?

John Fields

Slowman needs a thesaurus to come up with new invective. Start
ignoring his ass and spare the rest of us the tripe, or be killfiled.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson | mens |
| Analog Innovations | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| San Tan Valley, AZ 85142 Skype: skypeanalog | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:31:16 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 13:47:46 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:00:58 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

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:
[snip].

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.

---
A poor workman blames the toolmaker.

At that time Jim was doing the best one could with what was available,
and if you weren't happy with it you should have jumped into the fray
and designed your own chips.

Others certainly did.
---

I selected better tools at the first opportunity
- which came remarkably quickly, so presumably any
number of other workers had the same perceptions.

---
Hindsight's 20-20 for Monday morning quarterbacks.
---

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

---
Then, with popularity being the criterion from your own point of view,
since you've contributed nothing coming even close to the popularity
of Thompson's or Camenzind's stuff you're below them on the food
chain.
---

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?

---
I use it to neutralize lyes.
---


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.

---
Paper tiger.

John Fields

Slowman is a _weenie-sized_ schmuck.

My MC1530/31 still sells at high volume 53 years after it was
designed.... it's the most stable OpAmp _ever_... and slew rate up
there with the best of today... ask the military

Impressive 1/2 century ago, but by modern standards, it's a real dog.

Is it phase reversal safe?

6 v/us is slow. You can buy 6v/ns these days. 1000x faster.

LM8261 is maybe the most stable opamp around, behaves with any
capacitive load. Some other parts that are not advertised as c-load
stable actually are. Of course, you can hang comp parts onto the
MC1530 to slow it down as much as you like.

And, at my old age, I'll toot my own horn... my admission to MIT was
funded by MIT alumni who still followed the MERIT approach to awarding
scholarships... and I graduated from the MIT EE HONORS (VI-B) program
... there were only six of us in the Class of 1962.

You were born smart? That was an accident. A reason for gratitude, but
not for pride.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 03:33:17 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:46:27 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

I only opt not to because you know very well what I'm referring to,
but you just pretend not to so that if I reply you'll just have
another stage to meaninglyless frolic on.

I haven't got a clue what you might be 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.

I prefer conciseness, so "eroteme" it is:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/eroteme

Don't be silly. If you use a word that isn't in my passive vocabulary, you aren't being concise but merely obscure, and deliberately so.

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.

To the better-informed, Davies' sentence: "Well (giggle) he would,
wouldn't he?" was interrogative, as indicated by the eroteme and
properly punctuated by the Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/19/mandy-rice-davies-fabled-player-british-scandal-profumo

That was then. She might have been asking a rhetorical question, but I was quoting a well-known phrase for informative effect, not asking any kind of question.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 04:07:54 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:51:46 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

True enough, but that doesn't make your pretense at spokesmanship by
invoking opinion any less flawed or your dodging the question any less
obvious.

The "pretense of spokesmanship" exists only in your fevered and unconstrained imagination.

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.

Some wounds infict no immediate pain.

And all non-wounds.

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.

It's no misapprehension that you dodge the question with a barrage of
distractions. It's also clear that it's apprehension in your camp
which keeps you from answering it.

Wrong. It's ignorance. I haven't got a clue what you might be banging on about - at extraordinary length, too.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 04:47:54 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 18:00:58 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

A poor workman blames the toolmaker.

At that time Jim was doing the best one could with what was available,
and if you weren't happy with it you should have jumped into the fray
and designed your own chips.

Others certainly did.

When I was working at Cambridge Instruments, we sold a million dollar electron beam microfabricator to AWA in Australia, to be used in their chip fab, being set up to give Australia it's own. The marketing guys found out something I didn't know, which was that my younger brother, who was then working for the Australian construction company Lend-Lease, had negotiated the contract for the construction of the building to accomodate the chip fab, for some $50 million dollars.

Jim was working for Motorola at the time he was designing his chips. Those jobs were few and far between, and the people who got them had ahd rather specific training, which I hadn't. People like Bob Widlar, Barry Gilbert and Hans Camenzind had formal training in electronics, which I never did.

I selected better tools at the first opportunity
- which came remarkably quickly, so presumably any
number of other workers had the same perceptions.

Hindsight's 20-20 for Monday morning quarterbacks.

That wasn't hindsight. I used Jim's chips when they were the best available - and noted that they weren't very good - and gratefully moved on to better stuff when it (rapidly) became available.

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

Then, with popularity being the criterion from your own point of view,
since you've contributed nothing coming even close to the popularity
of Thompson's or Camenzind's stuff you're below them on the food
chain.

I'm not in that particular food chain. I've always been a user of integrated circuits, not a creator.

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?

I use it to neutralize lyes.

That's a bit silly. Commercicial inorganic acids are cheaper.

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.

Paper tiger.

CV's only exist on paper. My paper tiger trumps your paper tiger.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney