Time to Upgrade ?:-}

Bill Sloman · Aug 22, 2015

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 06:31:23 UTC+10, Jim Thompson 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.

Not that many people got hired as chip designers at that time, and every last one of them seems to have had formal training in electronic engineering.
<snip>

> Sloman is a _weenie-sized_ schmuck.

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson can't even git his insults right.

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

Who are probably the only people who still buy it for some legacy design or other. It looks like a me-too of the uA709, with the same set of three frequency compensation components. Like the NE555, it's still commercially available, but only a fool would put it into a new design.

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.

Assessing the merit of high school students isn't an exact science, and the strengths that makes you look like a promising candidate for an undergraduate program aren't the only ones you need once you graduate and move out into the real world.

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

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson is rather like krw - he thinks that anybody who disagrees with him has to be wrong, and that the disagreement is the only evidence he has to adduce that they are wrong, not to mention lying and stupid.

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 >:-}

A glass or so a wine a day seems to add to your life expectancy. Jim presumably in on the wrong side of the curve, where life-expectancy starts going down again because several glasses of wine a day are too much of a good thing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bill Sloman · Aug 22, 2015

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 07:19:36 UTC+10, John Fields 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.

In reality, I mostly correct them in my responses, and leave it at that. Some are comical enough to deserve attention, but they have to be very funny to get it.

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.

He's not intentionally suicidal, just another example of stupidity being a capital offense.

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

The pre- and post-pasteurisation health statistics are pretty persuasive. Pasteurisation wasn't the only technological advance involved, but it did save a lot of lives. Paradoxically, the fact that most milk today is pasteurised breaks the infection chains that made raw milk more dangerous in the past, so Jamie can drink the stuff - and give it to his nearest and dearest - with very little chance that his foolishness will do the damage it could.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bill Sloman · Aug 22, 2015

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 07:24:34 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:

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>

Sloman 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-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks I need a thesaurus for my invective. It would be wasted here, where most of our posters aren't aware that there's a technical difference between a moron and a cretin, and don't know enough to be aware that neither would be likely to post here.

His approach to dealing with the real world is to kill-file people who disagree with him, saving himself the intellectual labour of working out why they might be disagreeing with him, and the risk that he might learn something from them - which is too humiliating for him to contemplate.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bill Sloman · Aug 22, 2015

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 14:22:41 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
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:

<snip>

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.

Then you really don't have the command of the language you pretend to.

That doesn't actually follow. Your command of English is what's uncertain, and what seems obvious to you has turned out to be plain wrong in the past.

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.

If the word is one you knew but don't use (so you say) that's hardly
being obscure, and I certainly don't base my use of the language
according to your limitations.

Obviously, your use of English is restricted by your own limitations, which are perceptible, if subtle - you really aren't at home in complex senstences.

The use of a word that doesn't show up in the Kucera-Francis table of word frequencies, when there's a widely used alternative two-word expression meaning the same thing, is deliberate obscurity.

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.

And this is now, which still doesn't alter the fact that you knowingly
falsified the nature of her quote, for whatever reason.

What makes you think that? A certain self-preserving evasiveness?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Fields · Aug 22, 2015

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 14:24:29 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

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

---
Go ahead and killfile me if you like, I really don't have much to lose
if you do.

John Fields

John Fields · Aug 22, 2015

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

---
Then you really don't have the command of the language you pretend 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.

---
If the word is one you knew but don't use (so you say) that's hardly
being obscure, and I certainly don't base my use of the language
according to your limitations.
---

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.

---
And this is now, which still doesn't alter the fact that you knowingly
falsified the nature of her quote, for whatever reason.

John Fields

Bill Sloman · Aug 22, 2015

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 16:43:42 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 14:22:41 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
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:

snip

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.

Then you really don't have the command of the language you pretend to.

That doesn't actually follow. Your command of English is what's uncertain, and what seems obvious to you has turned out to be plain wrong in the past.

---
That's just another unsubstantiated dodge to take the focus away from
the fact that if you really do have the command of English which you
claim to, the nature of the gaffe should be readily apparent to you.
---

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.

If the word is one you knew but don't use (so you say) that's hardly
being obscure, and I certainly don't base my use of the language
according to your limitations.

Obviously, your use of English is restricted by your own limitations, which are perceptible, if subtle - you really aren't at home in complex sentences.

Claims without corroboration are meaningless twaddle.

True, but the corroboration is available here, for those with the interest and the patience to look. I don't have either.

The use of a word that doesn't show up in the Kucera-Francis table of word frequencies, when there's a widely used alternative two-word expression meaning the same thing, is deliberate obscurity.

Wow...

Fancy dodge, but if you understood the word, its meaning couldn't
have been obscure and if you didn't, your recriminations are efforts
to cast the blame for your ignorance away from where it lies.

I understood the word, once I'd gone to trouble of looking it up. I may have seen it before, but not often enough for the meaning to have been built into my internal data-base - which is fairly extensive. It strikes me as s deliberate and pretentious obscurity.

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.

And this is now, which still doesn't alter the fact that you knowingly
falsified the nature of her quote, for whatever reason.

"Deliberately falsified"? She was saying that Lord Astor's denial of her allegation was predictable, predicated on the circumstances that made in very much in his interest to deny it.

The parallel with your situation isn't exact - I'm pointing out that your sentence comprehension is imperfect, and your denial is of a piece with your false perception that it isn't - but the parallel is close enough for government work.

<unmarked snip>

What makes you think that? A certain self-preserving evasiveness?

Yes, of course, with it coming from your camp.

Here we go again. My question started off with "What makes you think that" and hypothesised a certain self-preserving evasiveness on your part as a plausible answer.

You've got to do a bit more work than "with it coming from your camp" if you want to construct a coherent counter-allegation, not that coherence has ever been your strong suite.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Bill Sloman · Aug 22, 2015

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 17:23:58 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:46:15 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 07:24:34 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
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

Sloman 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-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks I need a thesaurus for my invective. It would be wasted here, where most of our posters aren't aware that there's a technical difference between a moron and a cretin, and don't know enough to be aware that neither would be likely to post here.

His approach to dealing with the real world is to kill-file people who disagree with him, saving himself the intellectual labour of working out why they might be disagreeing with him, and the risk that he might learn something from them - which is too humiliating for him to contemplate.

I can't speak for Jim, of course, but it seems to me that I've seen no
shortage of posts from him asking for help of one sort or another, so
your assessment of his reticense to lose face for admitting ignorance
is flawed.

He's happy to ask for help about fixing his cocktail coasters, or buying a new computer. His political misconceptions are rather more firmly held.

You, on the other hand, play at jousting while not honestly admitting
when you've been unhorsed and, instead, cast aspersions on who
unhorsed you, claiming them unworthy of the deed.

You do have your own delusions, and contrive to emulate Don Quixote, tilting at the verbal equivalents of windmills that you find threatening due to a certain unfortunate weakness in you sentence-processing system.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Fields · Aug 22, 2015

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 14:22:41 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
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:

snip

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.

Then you really don't have the command of the language you pretend to.

That doesn't actually follow. Your command of English is what's uncertain, and what seems obvious to you has turned out to be plain wrong in the past.

---
That's just another unsubstantiated dodge to take the focus away from
the fact that if you really do have the command of English which you
claim to, the nature of the gaffe should be readily apparent to you.
---

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.

If the word is one you knew but don't use (so you say) that's hardly
being obscure, and I certainly don't base my use of the language
according to your limitations.

Obviously, your use of English is restricted by your own limitations, which are perceptible, if subtle -

---
Not so yours, which are rather glaring, as in your following
"senstence".
---

>you really aren't at home in complex senstences.

---
Claims without corroboration are meaningless twaddle.
---

>The use of a word that doesn't show up in the Kucera-Francis table of word frequencies, when there's a widely used alternative two-word expression meaning the same thing, is deliberate obscurity.

---
Wow...

Fancy dodge, but if you undertstood the word, its meaning couldn't
have been obscure and if you didn't, your recriminations are efforts
to cast the blame for your ignorance away from where it lies.
---

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.

And this is now, which still doesn't alter the fact that you knowingly
falsified the nature of her quote, for whatever reason.

What makes you think that? A certain self-preserving evasiveness?

---
Yes, of course, with it coming from your camp.

John Fields

John Fields · Aug 22, 2015

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 20:46:15 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 07:24:34 UTC+10, Jim Thompson wrote:
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

Sloman 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-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson thinks I need a thesaurus for my invective. It would be wasted here, where most of our posters aren't aware that there's a technical difference between a moron and a cretin, and don't know enough to be aware that neither would be likely to post here.

His approach to dealing with the real world is to kill-file people who disagree with him, saving himself the intellectual labour of working out why they might be disagreeing with him, and the risk that he might learn something from them - which is too humiliating for him to contemplate.

---
I can't speak for Jim, of course, but it seems to me that I've seen no
shortage of posts from him asking for help of one sort or another, so
your assessment of his reticense to lose face for admitting ignorance
is flawed.

You, on the other hand, play at jousting while not honestly admitting
when you've been unhorsed and, instead, cast aspersions on who
unhorsed you, claiming them unworthy of the deed.

Bill Sloman · Aug 22, 2015

On Sunday, 23 August 2015 00:35:42 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 01:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 16:43:42 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 14:22:41 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
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:

<snip>

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.

And this is now, which still doesn't alter the fact that you knowingly
falsified the nature of her quote, for whatever reason.

"Deliberately falsified"?

No, "knowingly falsified".

If you're going to use quotation marks, you should copy the text
you're quoting instead of paraphrasing.

You use the term "quotation marks". I'd prefer to say I delimited the phrase with double apostrophes. Obviously, it wasn't a quotation - since the original was directly above it.

She was saying that Lord Astor's denial of her allegation
was predictable, predicated on the circumstances that made
it very much in his interest to deny it.

That's just another attempt at obfuscation since you falsely claimed
that her statement was declarative and can't bear to recant and admit
that it was interrogatory, as clearly evidenced by the trailing
eroteme.

I didn't say that her statement was declarative, I said that mine was. Hers was a famous, and often quoted rhetorical question, and I was making a declarative reference to that situation. Your incapacity to cope with subtle expression has tripped you up again.

BTW, "that made in very much" should read "that made it very much".

Sure. Another typo.

The parallel with your situation isn't exact - I'm pointing out that your sentence comprehension is imperfect, and your denial is of a piece with your false perception that it isn't - but the parallel is close enough for government work.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...

You make baseless accusations of inadequacy and then claim that even
though the accusations are inexact they're adequate enough for: "We'll
give him a fair trial and hang him in the morning.

You'd like to think so.

How typically Slomanesque.

I'd call your attitude Quixotic, if it wasn't entirely self-serving.

unmarked snip

What makes you think that? A certain self-preserving evasiveness?

Yes, of course, with it coming from your camp.

Here we go again. My question started off with "What makes you think that" and hypothesised a certain self-preserving evasiveness on your part as a plausible answer.

Yes, Bill, I know, and your hypothesis being flawed allowed me to
point out that you had put your foot in your mouth.

Sadly for your claims to linguistic competence, it doesn't. First because my hypothesis isn't flawed - or if it were you hadn't demonstrated it - and the way you tried to make the claim didn't actually work, as you'd be aware if you didn't have a tin ear for coomplex sentences.

You've got to do a bit more work than "with it coming from your camp" if you want to construct a coherent counter-allegation, not that coherence has ever been your strong suite.

I'd rather just stick with the stinging retort and, by the way, it's
"strong suit".

Perhaps. As for the "stinging retort", it fell flat - as you would have noticed if you could parse complex sentences.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

John Fields · Aug 22, 2015

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 01:03:26 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 16:43:42 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 22:02:21 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, 22 August 2015 14:22:41 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 19:44:44 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
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:

snip

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.

Then you really don't have the command of the language you pretend to.

That doesn't actually follow. Your command of English is what's uncertain, and what seems obvious to you has turned out to be plain wrong in the past.

---
That's just another unsubstantiated dodge to take the focus away from
the fact that if you really do have the command of English which you
claim to, the nature of the gaffe should be readily apparent to you.
---

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.

If the word is one you knew but don't use (so you say) that's hardly
being obscure, and I certainly don't base my use of the language
according to your limitations.

Obviously, your use of English is restricted by your own limitations, which are perceptible, if subtle - you really aren't at home in complex sentences.

Claims without corroboration are meaningless twaddle.

True, but the corroboration is available here, for those with the interest and the patience to look. I don't have either.

The use of a word that doesn't show up in the Kucera-Francis table of word frequencies, when there's a widely used alternative two-word expression meaning the same thing, is deliberate obscurity.

Wow...

Fancy dodge, but if you understood the word, its meaning couldn't
have been obscure and if you didn't, your recriminations are efforts
to cast the blame for your ignorance away from where it lies.

I understood the word, once I'd gone to trouble of looking it up. I may have seen it before, but not often enough for the meaning to have been built into my internal data-base - which is fairly extensive. It strikes me as s deliberate and pretentious obscurity.

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.

And this is now, which still doesn't alter the fact that you knowingly
falsified the nature of her quote, for whatever reason.

"Deliberately falsified"?

---
No, "knowingly falsified".

If you're going to use quotation marks, you should copy the text
you're quoting instead of paraphrasing.
---

She was saying that Lord Astor's denial of her allegation
was predictable, predicated on the circumstances that made
in very much in his interest to deny it.

---

That's just another attempt at obfuscation since you falsely claimed
that her statement was declarative and can't bear to recant and admit
that it was interrogatory, as clearly evidenced by the trailing
eroteme.

BTW, "that made in very much" should read "that made it very much".
---

>The parallel with your situation isn't exact - I'm pointing out that your sentence comprehension is imperfect, and your denial is of a piece with your false perception that it isn't - but the parallel is close enough for government work.

---
Tsk, tsk, tsk...

You make baseless accusations of inadequacy and then claim that even
though the accusations are inexact they're adequate enough for: "We'll
give him a fair trial and hang him in the morning.

How typically Slomanesque.
---

unmarked snip

What makes you think that? A certain self-preserving evasiveness?

Yes, of course, with it coming from your camp.

Here we go again. My question started off with "What makes you think that" and hypothesised a certain self-preserving evasiveness on your part as a plausible answer.

---
Yes, Bill, I know, and your hypothesis being flawed allowed me to
point out that you had put your foot in your mouth.
---

>You've got to do a bit more work than "with it coming from your camp" if you want to construct a coherent counter-allegation, not that coherence has ever been your strong suite.

---
I'd rather just stick with the stinging retort and, by the way, it's
"strong suit".

John Fields

John Fields · Aug 22, 2015

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 01:12:17 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

>You do have your own delusions, and contrive to emulate Don Quixote, tilting at the verbal equivalents of windmills that you find threatening due to a certain unfortunate weakness in you sentence-processing system.

---
Ermm...

It should read: "in your sentence-processing system." and, with that,
I take my leave of this waste of time.

Martin Riddle · Aug 29, 2015

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:13:44 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:04:12 -0400, Martin Riddle
martin_ridd@verizon.net> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:16:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

I think it's time I upgraded my 'Spice' machine... my present machine
is as follows... no laughter please... I've successfully done at least
at least 20 chip designs on this machine. What modern equivalent
should I replace it with?

====================================

Computer Profile Summary
Computer Name:Analog3 (in ANALOG)

Profile Date:Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:59:53 AM

Operating System
Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack3 (build 2195)

Processor a Main Circuit Board 2.20 gigahertz AMD Athlon 64

128 kilobyte primary memory cache
1024 kilobyte secondary memory cache
Bus Clock: 200 megahertz

BIOS: Phoenix Technologies, LTD 6.00PG 07/28/2004

Drives Memory Modules c,d
137.44 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
93.05 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

LITE-ON COMBO SOHC-5232K
[CD-ROM drive]

3.5" format removeable media [Floppy
drive]

WDC WD1600JB-00EVA0 [Hard drive] (160.04 GB) SMART Status: Healthy

1024 Megabytes Installed Memory

...Jim Thompson

So what did you decide on?

Cheers

A Dell OptiPlex 7020, Wimpows 7.1, just was delivered in the last
hour. I'll report weekend heartburn as I bring it on-line ;-)

...Jim Thompson

There good systems, We have a couple at work the newest one scored
better than the 5yr old Xeons we have.
Hope you have at least a DVI input on your monitor, the Optiplex is
Display port only and you should have gotten a DP to DVI adaptor in
the box.

Cheers

Martin Riddle · Aug 29, 2015

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:16:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

I think it's time I upgraded my 'Spice' machine... my present machine
is as follows... no laughter please... I've successfully done at least
at least 20 chip designs on this machine. What modern equivalent
should I replace it with?

====================================

Computer Profile Summary
Computer Name:Analog3 (in ANALOG)

Profile Date:Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:59:53 AM

Operating System
Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack3 (build 2195)

Processor a Main Circuit Board 2.20 gigahertz AMD Athlon 64

128 kilobyte primary memory cache
1024 kilobyte secondary memory cache
Bus Clock: 200 megahertz

BIOS: Phoenix Technologies, LTD 6.00PG 07/28/2004

Drives Memory Modules c,d
137.44 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
93.05 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

LITE-ON COMBO SOHC-5232K
[CD-ROM drive]

3.5" format removeable media [Floppy
drive]

WDC WD1600JB-00EVA0 [Hard drive] (160.04 GB) SMART Status: Healthy

1024 Megabytes Installed Memory

...Jim Thompson

So what did you decide on?

Cheers

Jim Thompson · Aug 29, 2015

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:04:12 -0400, Martin Riddle
<martin_ridd@verizon.net> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:16:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

I think it's time I upgraded my 'Spice' machine... my present machine
is as follows... no laughter please... I've successfully done at least
at least 20 chip designs on this machine. What modern equivalent
should I replace it with?

====================================

Computer Profile Summary
Computer Name:Analog3 (in ANALOG)

Profile Date:Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:59:53 AM

Operating System
Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack3 (build 2195)

Processor a Main Circuit Board 2.20 gigahertz AMD Athlon 64

128 kilobyte primary memory cache
1024 kilobyte secondary memory cache
Bus Clock: 200 megahertz

BIOS: Phoenix Technologies, LTD 6.00PG 07/28/2004

Drives Memory Modules c,d
137.44 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
93.05 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

LITE-ON COMBO SOHC-5232K
[CD-ROM drive]

3.5" format removeable media [Floppy
drive]

WDC WD1600JB-00EVA0 [Hard drive] (160.04 GB) SMART Status: Healthy

1024 Megabytes Installed Memory

...Jim Thompson

So what did you decide on?

Cheers

Robert Baer · Aug 29, 2015

Martin Riddle wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:16:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

I think it's time I upgraded my 'Spice' machine... my present machine
is as follows... no laughter please... I've successfully done at least
at least 20 chip designs on this machine. What modern equivalent
should I replace it with?

====================================

Computer Profile Summary
Computer Name:Analog3 (in ANALOG)

Profile Date:Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:59:53 AM

Operating System
Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack3 (build 2195)

Processor a Main Circuit Board 2.20 gigahertz AMD Athlon 64

128 kilobyte primary memory cache
1024 kilobyte secondary memory cache
Bus Clock: 200 megahertz

BIOS: Phoenix Technologies, LTD 6.00PG 07/28/2004

Drives Memory Modules c,d
137.44 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
93.05 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

LITE-ON COMBO SOHC-5232K
[CD-ROM drive]

3.5" format removeable media [Floppy
drive]

WDC WD1600JB-00EVA0 [Hard drive] (160.04 GB) SMART Status: Healthy

1024 Megabytes Installed Memory

...Jim Thompson

So what did you decide on?

Cheers

I have SP4 available; it was a freebie on the web.
See screen capture.
Will Snail to you if you want.

Robert Baer · Aug 29, 2015

Jim Thompson wrote:

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 22:04:12 -0400, Martin Riddle
martin_ridd@verizon.net> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:16:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:

I think it's time I upgraded my 'Spice' machine... my present machine
is as follows... no laughter please... I've successfully done at least
at least 20 chip designs on this machine. What modern equivalent
should I replace it with?

====================================

Computer Profile Summary
Computer Name:Analog3 (in ANALOG)

Profile Date:Wednesday, June 29, 2005 11:59:53 AM

Operating System
Windows 2000 Professional Service Pack3 (build 2195)

Processor a Main Circuit Board 2.20 gigahertz AMD Athlon 64

128 kilobyte primary memory cache
1024 kilobyte secondary memory cache
Bus Clock: 200 megahertz

BIOS: Phoenix Technologies, LTD 6.00PG 07/28/2004

Drives Memory Modules c,d
137.44 Gigabytes Usable Hard Drive Capacity
93.05 Gigabytes Hard Drive Free Space

LITE-ON COMBO SOHC-5232K
[CD-ROM drive]

3.5" format removeable media [Floppy
drive]

WDC WD1600JB-00EVA0 [Hard drive] (160.04 GB) SMART Status: Healthy

1024 Megabytes Installed Memory

...Jim Thompson

So what did you decide on?

Cheers

A Dell OptiPlex 7020, Wimpows 7.1, just was delivered in the last
hour. I'll report weekend heartburn as I bring it on-line ;-)

...Jim Thompson
A genuine Smell? A white box wold have been better, me thinks.

Time to Upgrade ?:-}

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

John Fields

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

John Fields

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Bill Sloman

Guest

John Fields

Guest

John Fields

Guest

Martin Riddle

Guest

Martin Riddle

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Robert Baer

Guest

Robert Baer

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor