> On May 6, 10:30 am, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> George Herold wrote:
>>> On Apr 16, 6:32 pm, Phil Hobbs
>>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>> George Herold wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 16, 12:42 am, Phil Hobbs
>>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>> George Herold wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 15, 11:26 am, Phil Hobbs
>>>>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, you can use a gated integrator or a T/H to get a PWM
>>>>>>>> to settle in one period.
>>
>>>>>>> Gated integrator's.. aka boxcar averagers. They seem to have gone out
>>>>>>> of style*.
>>>>>>> I was thinking I could use one to pick off the tail of the photodiode
>>>>>>> pulse response. Hit the edge of the PD with a laser pulse. (sorry
>>>>>>> dragging this thread back to the start.)
>>
>>>>>>> So here's a question,. (I'm not expecting any definitive answers.)
>>>>>>> Is the slow response from the edge of the PD due to a diffusion
>>>>>>> effect. The edge absorption is in a doped region and carriers must
>>>>>>> diffuse from there before entering the depletion region, where they
>>>>>>> are swept away... and give a sharp pulse. ('full shot noise')
>>>>>>> or,
>>>>>>> Is the slow response from the sides due to edge defects in the undoped
>>>>>>> intrinsic layer. Charge carrier near the edge get trapped 'in the
>>>>>>> middle' for a micro second or so. (And thus show less than full shot
>>>>>>> noise.)
>>
>>>>>> This starts to get a little subtle, I think.
>>>>> Sure, that's what makes it fun.
>>
>>>>>> ISTM that you have to draw
>>>>>> a conceptual line between processes that contribute randomness, i.e.
>>>>>> primary photodetection and diffusion, and ones that don't, e.g. the RC
>>>>>> rolloff due to the photodiode capacitance. So let's model the PD as two
>>>>>> noisy current sources in parallel--a slow one and a fast one--with a
>>>>>> capacitor in parallel.
>>
>>>>>> I'd be willing to bet that both the fast and slow current sources
>>>>>> produce shot noise equal to sqrt(2*e*I_N), where I_N is the
>>>>>> instantaneous current arriving by the Nth mechanism.
>>
>>>>> All very true. I'm suggesting it's a bandwidth question. If one
>>>>> channel (the slow current source) has a longer transit time (across
>>>>> the depletion region). Then the band width is less. So my picture
>>>>> for that would be some edge inducted trap states. The charge carriers
>>>>> are photo-excited in the intrinsic region, but one falls into an edge
>>>>> trap and gets stuck there for a few microseconds. (Is that a
>>>>> reasonable trapping time?) . Then the qv (charge times velocity)
>>>>> current pulse gets broken into two. (That last for a shorter time, in
>>>>> this 'simple' picture.) Mind you, I'm pretty much making up the idea
>>>>> of such edge defects.
>>
>>>>> Hmm, this is not really a bandwidth issue.... It's a splitting of the
>>>>> current pulse in two. Each, on average, only 1/2 an electron long.
>>>>> The qv pulse integrated over time has to add up e. The charge of the
>>>>> electron. (That is kinda subtle.)
>>
>>>>> The other possibility is that the slow response is due to absorption
>>>>> of the photon in an edge doped region (p or n). The slow response is
>>>>> just waiting for them to diffuse into the depletion layer, where each
>>>>> gives one nice current pulse. This seems much more likely, since
>>>>> diffusion times are in the microsecond range and that's what I see.
>>
>>>>>> (One has to be a bit careful about the statistics of time-varying
>>>>>> things, of course.)
>>
>>>>>> Then you apply the transfer function of the RC rolloff in order to
>>>>>> figure out what that gets you at the output.
>>
>>>>> Yeah, I was trying to separate the current pulses in the PD from how
>>>>> my external circiut responds. (It seems to all connect at the PD
>>>>> capacitance.) As you said all these current pulses are much faster
>>>>> than the other RC times in the external circuit...
>>
>>>>> George H.
>>
>>>> Well, there's an easy way to find out--shine a laser on the centre of
>>>> the PD and then the edge, adjust for the same DC photocurrent, and
>>>> measure the noise spectrum. My bet is that the noise spectrum is
>>>> exactly the same in the two cases.
>>
>>>> Cheers
>>
>>>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>> Yeah, I figured that would be an easy test.
>>
>>> George H.
>>
>> George,
>>
>> Did you ever try this out?
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>> --
>> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
>> Principal
>> ElectroOptical Innovations
>> 55 Orchard Rd
>> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
>> 845-480-2058
>>
>> email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) nethttp://electrooptical.net- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> No, (sigh). Just no time at the present. The circumstantial
> evidence is that it will still show full shot noise. (I didn�t see
> any difference in the shot noise between the masked PD and unmasked...
> at say the 1% -2 % level. ) But it�s hard to know how much of the
> light gets absorbed at the edge. I didn�t try shinning light just at
> the edge.
>
> If I don�t get to it, it will be in the manual (I�ve got to explain
> the slow bit of the step response.) And perhaps a student somewhere
> will be motivated to try.
>
> I�m a bit disappointed in OSI. After a telephone contact, I sent
> emails with schematics and data. Then a follow-up with the edge
> effect �discovery�. And not one peep out of them.
>
> Is there some reason you would be interested in the result?
>
> George H.
My third edition.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net
http://electrooptical.net
Reply by George Herold●May 6, 20112011-05-06
On May 6, 10:30=A0am, Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> George Herold wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 6:32 pm, Phil Hobbs
> > <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> =A0wrote:
> >> George Herold wrote:
> >>> On Apr 16, 12:42 am, Phil Hobbs
> >>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> =A0 =A0wrote:
> >>>> George Herold wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 15, 11:26 am, Phil Hobbs
> >>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> =A0 =A0 =A0wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>>> On the other hand, you can use a gated integrator or a T/H to get =
a PWM
> >>>>>> to settle in one period.
>
> >>>>> Gated integrator's.. aka boxcar averagers. =A0They seem to have gon=
e out
> >>>>> of style*.
> >>>>> I was thinking I could use one to pick off the tail of the photodio=
de
> >>>>> pulse response. =A0Hit the edge of the PD with a laser pulse. =A0(s=
orry
> >>>>> dragging this thread back to the start.)
>
> >>>>> So here's a question,. =A0(I'm not expecting any definitive answers=
.)
> >>>>> Is the slow response from the edge of the PD due to a diffusion
> >>>>> effect. =A0The edge absorption is in a doped region and carriers mu=
st
> >>>>> diffuse from there before entering the depletion region, where they
> >>>>> are swept away... and give a sharp pulse. =A0('full shot noise')
> >>>>> =A0 =A0 or,
> >>>>> Is the slow response from the sides due to edge defects in the undo=
ped
> >>>>> intrinsic layer. =A0Charge carrier near the edge get =A0trapped 'in=
the
> >>>>> middle' for a micro second or so. =A0 (And thus show less than full=
shot
> >>>>> noise.)
>
> >>>> This starts to get a little subtle, I think.
> >>> Sure, that's what makes it fun.
>
> >>>> ISTM that you have to draw
> >>>> a conceptual line between processes that contribute randomness, i.e.
> >>>> primary photodetection and diffusion, and ones that don't, e.g. the =
RC
> >>>> rolloff due to the photodiode capacitance. =A0So let's model the PD =
as two
> >>>> noisy current sources in parallel--a slow one and a fast one--with a
> >>>> capacitor in parallel.
>
> >>>> I'd be willing to bet that both the fast and slow current sources
> >>>> produce shot noise equal to sqrt(2*e*I_N), where I_N is the
> >>>> instantaneous current arriving by the Nth mechanism.
>
> >>> All very true. =A0I'm suggesting it's a bandwidth question. =A0If one
> >>> channel (the slow current source) has a longer transit time (across
> >>> the depletion region). =A0Then the band width is less. =A0So my pictu=
re
> >>> for that would be some edge inducted trap states. =A0The charge carri=
ers
> >>> are photo-excited in the intrinsic region, but one falls into an edge
> >>> trap and gets stuck there for a few microseconds. =A0(Is that a
> >>> reasonable trapping time?) . =A0Then the qv (charge times velocity)
> >>> current pulse gets broken into two. =A0(That last for a shorter time,=
in
> >>> this 'simple' picture.) =A0Mind you, I'm pretty much making up the id=
ea
> >>> of such edge defects.
>
> >>> Hmm, this is not really a bandwidth issue.... It's a splitting of the
> >>> current pulse in two. =A0Each, on average, only 1/2 an electron long.
> >>> The qv pulse integrated over time has to add up e. =A0The charge of t=
he
> >>> electron. =A0 (That is kinda subtle.)
>
> >>> The other possibility is that the slow response is due to absorption
> >>> of the photon in an edge doped region (p or n). =A0The slow response =
is
> >>> just waiting for them to diffuse into the depletion layer, where each
> >>> gives one nice current pulse. =A0This seems much more likely, since
> >>> diffusion times are in the microsecond range and that's what I see.
>
> >>>> (One has to be a bit careful about the statistics of time-varying
> >>>> things, of course.)
>
> >>>> Then you apply the transfer function of the RC rolloff in order to
> >>>> figure out what that gets you at the output.
>
> >>> Yeah, I was trying to separate the current pulses in the PD from how
> >>> my external circiut responds. =A0(It seems to all connect at the PD
> >>> capacitance.) =A0As you said all these current pulses are much faster
> >>> than the other RC times in the external circuit...
>
> >>> George H.
>
> >> Well, there's an easy way to find out--shine a laser on the centre of
> >> the PD and then the edge, adjust for the same DC photocurrent, and
> >> measure the noise spectrum. =A0My bet is that the noise spectrum is
> >> exactly the same in the two cases.
>
> >> Cheers
>
> >> Phil Hobbs
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Yeah, I figured that would be an easy test.
>
> > George H.
>
> George,
>
> Did you ever try this out?
>
> Cheers
>
> Phil Hobbs
>
> --
> Dr Philip C D Hobbs
> Principal
> ElectroOptical Innovations
> 55 Orchard Rd
> Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
> 845-480-2058
>
> email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) nethttp://electrooptical.ne=
t- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, (sigh). Just no time at the present. The circumstantial
evidence is that it will still show full shot noise. (I didn=92t see
any difference in the shot noise between the masked PD and unmasked...
at say the 1% -2 % level. ) But it=92s hard to know how much of the
light gets absorbed at the edge. I didn=92t try shinning light just at
the edge.
If I don=92t get to it, it will be in the manual (I=92ve got to explain
the slow bit of the step response.) And perhaps a student somewhere
will be motivated to try.
I=92m a bit disappointed in OSI. After a telephone contact, I sent
emails with schematics and data. Then a follow-up with the edge
effect =91discovery=92. And not one peep out of them.
Is there some reason you would be interested in the result?
George H.
Reply by Phil Hobbs●May 6, 20112011-05-06
George Herold wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:32 pm, Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>> George Herold wrote:
>>> On Apr 16, 12:42 am, Phil Hobbs
>>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>> George Herold wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 15, 11:26 am, Phil Hobbs
>>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSensel...@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> On the other hand, you can use a gated integrator or a T/H to get a PWM
>>>>>> to settle in one period.
>>
>>>>> Gated integrator's.. aka boxcar averagers. They seem to have gone out
>>>>> of style*.
>>>>> I was thinking I could use one to pick off the tail of the photodiode
>>>>> pulse response. Hit the edge of the PD with a laser pulse. (sorry
>>>>> dragging this thread back to the start.)
>>
>>>>> So here's a question,. (I'm not expecting any definitive answers.)
>>>>> Is the slow response from the edge of the PD due to a diffusion
>>>>> effect. The edge absorption is in a doped region and carriers must
>>>>> diffuse from there before entering the depletion region, where they
>>>>> are swept away... and give a sharp pulse. ('full shot noise')
>>>>> or,
>>>>> Is the slow response from the sides due to edge defects in the undoped
>>>>> intrinsic layer. Charge carrier near the edge get trapped 'in the
>>>>> middle' for a micro second or so. (And thus show less than full shot
>>>>> noise.)
>>
>>>> This starts to get a little subtle, I think.
>>> Sure, that's what makes it fun.
>>
>>>> ISTM that you have to draw
>>>> a conceptual line between processes that contribute randomness, i.e.
>>>> primary photodetection and diffusion, and ones that don't, e.g. the RC
>>>> rolloff due to the photodiode capacitance. So let's model the PD as two
>>>> noisy current sources in parallel--a slow one and a fast one--with a
>>>> capacitor in parallel.
>>
>>>> I'd be willing to bet that both the fast and slow current sources
>>>> produce shot noise equal to sqrt(2*e*I_N), where I_N is the
>>>> instantaneous current arriving by the Nth mechanism.
>>
>>> All very true. I'm suggesting it's a bandwidth question. If one
>>> channel (the slow current source) has a longer transit time (across
>>> the depletion region). Then the band width is less. So my picture
>>> for that would be some edge inducted trap states. The charge carriers
>>> are photo-excited in the intrinsic region, but one falls into an edge
>>> trap and gets stuck there for a few microseconds. (Is that a
>>> reasonable trapping time?) . Then the qv (charge times velocity)
>>> current pulse gets broken into two. (That last for a shorter time, in
>>> this 'simple' picture.) Mind you, I'm pretty much making up the idea
>>> of such edge defects.
>>
>>> Hmm, this is not really a bandwidth issue.... It's a splitting of the
>>> current pulse in two. Each, on average, only 1/2 an electron long.
>>> The qv pulse integrated over time has to add up e. The charge of the
>>> electron. (That is kinda subtle.)
>>
>>> The other possibility is that the slow response is due to absorption
>>> of the photon in an edge doped region (p or n). The slow response is
>>> just waiting for them to diffuse into the depletion layer, where each
>>> gives one nice current pulse. This seems much more likely, since
>>> diffusion times are in the microsecond range and that's what I see.
>>
>>>> (One has to be a bit careful about the statistics of time-varying
>>>> things, of course.)
>>
>>>> Then you apply the transfer function of the RC rolloff in order to
>>>> figure out what that gets you at the output.
>>
>>> Yeah, I was trying to separate the current pulses in the PD from how
>>> my external circiut responds. (It seems to all connect at the PD
>>> capacitance.) As you said all these current pulses are much faster
>>> than the other RC times in the external circuit...
>>
>>> George H.
>>
>> Well, there's an easy way to find out--shine a laser on the centre of
>> the PD and then the edge, adjust for the same DC photocurrent, and
>> measure the noise spectrum. My bet is that the noise spectrum is
>> exactly the same in the two cases.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Yeah, I figured that would be an easy test.
>
> George H.
George,
Did you ever try this out?
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
email: hobbs (atsign) electrooptical (period) net
http://electrooptical.net
Reply by Jim Thompson●April 20, 20112011-04-20
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:23:50 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:
Please watch your spelling. I had to create a new filter for
"AlwayWrong" ;-
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Remember: Once you go over the hill, you pick up speed
Reply by JW●April 20, 20112011-04-20
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:29:31 -0700 FatBytestard
<PhatBytestard@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote in Message id:
<eu9sq6la3g7j29kcvgaappp7j3e7n19bp3@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:22:55 -0400, JockWanger <none@dev.null> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:49:52 -0700 StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
>><Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote in Message id:
>><eitqq6dph4ask77belchcv9qmap565npsc@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:40:51 -0700, FatBytestard
>>><PhatBytestard@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:28:53 -0400, JockWanger <none@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:47:49 -0700 TheQuickBrownFox
>>>>><thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote in Message id:
>>>>><t39oq6dk2so03na36dklb05pig645c41pe@4ax.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:43:37 -0400, JockWanger <none@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>His doctor should have that lanced.
>>>>>> ^^^^^^-----------------------+
>>>>>> Only lardy fuc[POP] |
>>>>> |
>>>>>Well since your Docter won't, there|'s your virtual lancing.
>>>> |
>>>> The term is DOCTOR. |
>>>> |
>>>> More proof that you are a retarded|, illiterate jackass.
>>>> |
>>>> The sniptard loses... AGAIN! |
>>>> |
>>>> Only lardy fucking asswipes like y|ou have so much excess grease oozing
>>>>out of you that you get boils and ha|ve to go get them 'lanced'. That's
>>>>why only fucktards like you and Terr|ell are familiar with the term.
>>> |
>>> Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha|haahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
>>> |
>>> Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha|haahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
>>> |
>>> Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha|haahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
>>> |
>>> "Docter"??? Bwuahahahahahahahahahah|ahaahahahahahahaaa!
>>> |
>>> Don't claim "typo" either bitch. |
>> |
>>It *was* a typo,
>
> It was NOT a typo, you fucking squirming retard.
>
>> tackle-dummy.
>
> Your 11 year old maturity level is not in danger of advancing any time
>soon.
>
>> Some of| use two hands to type,
>
> Bwuahahahahahahaha! You know NOTHING about how I type.
>
>> not the
>>hunt-n-peck method like you do. |
>
>Project much, idiot? Bwuahahahahah!
> |
>>>The E and the O are miles apart on |
>>>the keyboard! |
>> |
>>Psst! --------------------------------+
>
> More immature utter stupidity. Good job, Jock Wanger.
>
>>Guess who wrote that, tackle-dummy?
>
> More likely THAT was the typo. You are too goddamned retarded to get
>language right. You also do it ALL THE TIME. So you have no credence,
>fucktard.
You're AlwayWrong. 'Nuff said.
Reply by FatBytestard●April 19, 20112011-04-19
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:22:55 -0400, JockWanger <none@dev.null> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:49:52 -0700 StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
><Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote in Message id:
><eitqq6dph4ask77belchcv9qmap565npsc@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:40:51 -0700, FatBytestard
>><PhatBytestard@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:28:53 -0400, JockWanger <none@dev.null> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:47:49 -0700 TheQuickBrownFox
>>>><thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote in Message id:
>>>><t39oq6dk2so03na36dklb05pig645c41pe@4ax.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:43:37 -0400, JockWanger <none@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>His doctor should have that lanced.
>>>>> ^^^^^^-----------------------+
>>>>> Only lardy fuc[POP] |
>>>> |
>>>>Well since your Docter won't, there|'s your virtual lancing.
>>> |
>>> The term is DOCTOR. |
>>> |
>>> More proof that you are a retarded|, illiterate jackass.
>>> |
>>> The sniptard loses... AGAIN! |
>>> |
>>> Only lardy fucking asswipes like y|ou have so much excess grease oozing
>>>out of you that you get boils and ha|ve to go get them 'lanced'. That's
>>>why only fucktards like you and Terr|ell are familiar with the term.
>> |
>> Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha|haahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
>> |
>> Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha|haahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
>> |
>> Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha|haahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
>> |
>> "Docter"??? Bwuahahahahahahahahahah|ahaahahahahahahaaa!
>> |
>> Don't claim "typo" either bitch. |
> |
>It *was* a typo,
It was NOT a typo, you fucking squirming retard.
> tackle-dummy.
Your 11 year old maturity level is not in danger of advancing any time
soon.
> Some of| use two hands to type,
Bwuahahahahahahaha! You know NOTHING about how I type.
> not the
>hunt-n-peck method like you do. |
Project much, idiot? Bwuahahahahah!
|
>>The E and the O are miles apart on |
>>the keyboard! |
> |
>Psst! --------------------------------+
More immature utter stupidity. Good job, Jock Wanger.
>Guess who wrote that, tackle-dummy?
More likely THAT was the typo. You are too goddamned retarded to get
language right. You also do it ALL THE TIME. So you have no credence,
fucktard.
Reply by JW●April 19, 20112011-04-19
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:49:52 -0700 StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
<Zarathustra@thusspoke.org> wrote in Message id:
<eitqq6dph4ask77belchcv9qmap565npsc@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:40:51 -0700, FatBytestard
><PhatBytestard@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:28:53 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:47:49 -0700 TheQuickBrownFox
>>><thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote in Message id:
>>><t39oq6dk2so03na36dklb05pig645c41pe@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:43:37 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>His doctor should have that lanced.
>>>> ^^^^^^-----------------------+
>>>> Only lardy fuc[POP] |
>>> |
>>>Well since your Docter won't, there|'s your virtual lancing.
>> |
>> The term is DOCTOR. |
>> |
>> More proof that you are a retarded|, illiterate jackass.
>> |
>> The sniptard loses... AGAIN! |
>> |
>> Only lardy fucking asswipes like y|ou have so much excess grease oozing
>>out of you that you get boils and ha|ve to go get them 'lanced'. That's
>>why only fucktards like you and Terr|ell are familiar with the term.
> |
> Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha|haahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
> |
> Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha|haahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
> |
> Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha|haahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
> |
> "Docter"??? Bwuahahahahahahahahahah|ahaahahahahahahaaa!
> |
> Don't claim "typo" either bitch. |
|
It *was* a typo, tackle-dummy. Some of| use two hands to type, not the
hunt-n-peck method like you do. |
|
>The E and the O are miles apart on |
>the keyboard! |
|
Psst! --------------------------------+
Guess who wrote that, tackle-dummy?
Reply by StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt●April 19, 20112011-04-19
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 04:40:51 -0700, FatBytestard
<PhatBytestard@somewheronyourharddrive.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:28:53 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:47:49 -0700 TheQuickBrownFox
>><thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote in Message id:
>><t39oq6dk2so03na36dklb05pig645c41pe@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:43:37 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>His doctor should have that lanced.
>>>
>>> Only lardy fuc[POP]
>>
>>Well since your Docter won't, there's your virtual lancing.
>
> The term is DOCTOR.
>
> More proof that you are a retarded, illiterate jackass.
>
> The sniptard loses... AGAIN!
>
> Only lardy fucking asswipes like you have so much excess grease oozing
>out of you that you get boils and have to go get them 'lanced'. That's
>why only fucktards like you and Terrell are familiar with the term.
Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
Bwuahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaahahahaahahahahahaahahahahahaahaha!
"Docter"??? Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahaaa!
Don't claim "typo" either bitch. The E and the O are miles apart on
the keyboard!
Reply by FatBytestard●April 19, 20112011-04-19
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 07:28:53 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:47:49 -0700 TheQuickBrownFox
><thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote in Message id:
><t39oq6dk2so03na36dklb05pig645c41pe@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:43:37 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>His doctor should have that lanced.
>>
>> Only lardy fuc[POP]
>
>Well since your Docter won't, there's your virtual lancing.
The term is DOCTOR.
More proof that you are a retarded, illiterate jackass.
The sniptard loses... AGAIN!
Only lardy fucking asswipes like you have so much excess grease oozing
out of you that you get boils and have to go get them 'lanced'. That's
why only fucktards like you and Terrell are familiar with the term.
Reply by JW●April 19, 20112011-04-19
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 04:47:49 -0700 TheQuickBrownFox
<thequickbrownfox@overthelazydog.org> wrote in Message id:
<t39oq6dk2so03na36dklb05pig645c41pe@4ax.com>:
>On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:43:37 -0400, JW <none@dev.null> wrote:
>
>>
>>His doctor should have that lanced.
>
> Only lardy fuc[POP]
Well since your Docter won't, there's your virtual lancing.