On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:14:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 03:30:21 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:36:05 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Monday, 10 February 2014 11:34:02 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote: 
>> >> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:34:13 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman 
>> >> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:  
>> >> >On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:02:00 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:  
>> >> >> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:29:29 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman   
>> >> >> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:  
>> >> >> >On Sunday, 9 February 2014 18:47:16 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:   
>> >> >> >> On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:30:49 +1100, Bill Sloman    
>> >> >> >> <cutlersloman@tpg.com.au> wrote:  
>> >> >> >> >On 9/02/2014 10:46 AM, John Fields wrote:  
>> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:20:44 -0000, "Ian Field" 
>> >> >> >> >> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:  
>> >> >> >> >>> "John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message 
>> >> >> >> >>> news:juadf9p38kfvm23hg8qvpreulol46u0r44@4ax.com...   
>> >> >> >> >>>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:40:53 -0000, "Ian Field"  
>> >> >> >> >>>> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:    
>> >  
>> ><snip>
>> > 
>> >> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> >> Watching a cockroach scamper across the floor is hardly stalking...  
>> >> >> >> >   
>> >> >> >> >Except that in this context, John Fields is the cockroach.   
>> >> >> >>   
>> >> >> >> One would expect you'd feel that way, your parsing skills being   
>> >> >> >> what they are.  
>> >> >> >  
>> >> >> >On the contrary, parsing doesn't come into it. You intrude into a moderately technical discussion of waveguides with a totally irrelevant flame, and then get shirty when Ian Fields - not unreasonably - takes offense.  
>> >> >>    
>> >> >> My error then; it wasn't a question of parsing, it was a lack of  
>> >> >> reading comprehension which led you to miss the rancor in Field's:   
>> >> >> "I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my 
>> >> >> life story".   
>> >> >>  
>> >> >> Similar in tone to much of your own pretentious flap, the  
>> >> >> unconscious oversight is hardly surprising.    
>> >> >>  
>> >> >> >From my point of view, that makes you the obnoxious insect, scuttling in to scavange a spot of personal gratification without making any kind of useful contribution in the process.  
>> >> >>   
>> >> >> Tit for tat often keeps a bully at bay, which is gratifying in its  
>> >> >> own right. 
>> >> >
>> >> >That wasn't tit for tat, but an unreasonably offensive response to a minor provocation. 
>> >>  
>> >> You retaliate in your way and I'll retaliate in mine, thank you very  
>> >> much.  
>> >
>> >You didn't need to "retaliate", and the response was out of all proportion to the offense (such as it was). 
>> >    
>> >> >> >> >>> I thought you'd died. 
>> >> >> >> >>  
>> >> >> >> >> That pretty much seems to go hand-in-hand with the rest of     
>> >> >> >> >> your "thinking".  
>> >> >> >> >  
>> >> >> >> >Wishful thinking is popular. I don't think Ian Fields is any    
>> >> >> >> >more guilty of it than the rest of us. You - for instance -     
>> >> >> >> >expect to be taken seriously. I'm not that optimistic.  
>> >> >> >>   
>> >> >> >> With good reason. 
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >If only I could earn a better audience ...  
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Perhaps, then - with the reputation you've already earned around 
>> >> >> here in mind - a different venue might more nearly fit your needs?  
>> >> > 
>> >> >I'm perfectly happy with the more discriminating parts of this audience. Admittedly, the less discrimating part does discriminate, but on the basis of nationality and political affiliation, rather than on rational content (which they can't actually process).
>> >>  
>> >> All gobbledygook.
>> > 
>> >As I said  - "which they can't actually process".
>> 
>> >You've just taken the trouble to identify yourself as a member of the less discriminating part of s.e.d.
>> > 
>> >> You've had rational content presented as evidence of your foibles on  
>> >> more than one occasion, and rather than confront the presenter with
>> >> rational discourse and take the thumping you deserve when you've 
>> >> been unhorsed, you scurry away muttering epithets designed to kill
>> >> the messenger.
>> >
>> >You idea of "rational content" was in fact your misapprehension dressed up in pretentious language. I spent quite a while trying to educate you about what complex sentences actually meant, without achieving anything useful. Your memory displays you in a different - if totally implausible - role.
>> 
>> He said she said...
>
>Not exactly. I can read and write at a respectable level, and have a Ph.D. and a handful of published papers to prove it. 

---
That's nothing but a red herring, you cheat, - which hardly refutes:
"He said she said..." - so you must not have known what I meant and
just wanted to slime by.
---

>You know all there is to know about the 555 (except that it is obsolete) 

---
You drone on and on about that, a la Joseph Goebbels, as if
repetition will turn white into black.

I just looked at Digi-Key and they have access to a million units or
so, and TI has both the bipolar NE555 and the CMOS TLC555 listed as
"active" which means they're in full production, so perhaps your
definition of 'obsolete' differs from theirs.

Or else all those 'legacy' designs/applications you keep referring
to, and their repairs, are eating up all that silicon?
---

>and regularly demonstrate an incapacity to pares complex sentences 

---
Well, at least I can pares potatoes...
---

>- they look like gobbledygook to you. 

---
And so they are, no matter how much sense they make to _your_
deranged mind.
---

>Your opinion doesn't carry much weight.

---
And yet you can't even budge it with all your devastating wit?
---

>I'd fight to the death for your right to express it, but I'll also take pleasure in ridiculing it.

---
Evelyn Beatrice Hall you ain't, and you take pleasure in ridiculing
everything you don't understand in order to keep from having to step
out of that six foot hole you've dug for yourself.

On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 03:30:21 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:36:05 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Monday, 10 February 2014 11:34:02 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:=20
> >> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:34:13 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman=20
> >> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote: =20
> >> >On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:02:00 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote: =20
> >> >> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:29:29 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman  =20
> >> >> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote: =20
> >> >> >On Sunday, 9 February 2014 18:47:16 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:  =
=20
> >> >> >> On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:30:49 +1100, Bill Sloman   =20
> >> >> >> <cutlersloman@tpg.com.au> wrote: =20
> >> >> >> >On 9/02/2014 10:46 AM, John Fields wrote: =20
> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:20:44 -0000, "Ian Field"=20
> >> >> >> >> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote: =20
> >> >> >> >>> "John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in messa=
ge=20
> >> >> >> >>> news:juadf9p38kfvm23hg8qvpreulol46u0r44@4ax.com...  =20
> >> >> >> >>>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:40:53 -0000, "Ian Field" =20
> >> >> >> >>>> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:   =20
> > =20
> ><snip>
> >=20
> >> >> >> >>=20
> >> >> >> >> Watching a cockroach scamper across the floor is hardly stalk=
ing... =20
> >> >> >> >  =20
> >> >> >> >Except that in this context, John Fields is the cockroach.  =20
> >> >> >>  =20
> >> >> >> One would expect you'd feel that way, your parsing skills being =
 =20
> >> >> >> what they are. =20
> >> >> > =20
> >> >> >On the contrary, parsing doesn't come into it. You intrude into a =
moderately technical discussion of waveguides with a totally irrelevant fla=
me, and then get shirty when Ian Fields - not unreasonably - takes offense.=
 =20
> >> >>   =20
> >> >> My error then; it wasn't a question of parsing, it was a lack of =
=20
> >> >> reading comprehension which led you to miss the rancor in Field's: =
 =20
> >> >> "I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my=20
> >> >> life story".  =20
> >> >> =20
> >> >> Similar in tone to much of your own pretentious flap, the =20
> >> >> unconscious oversight is hardly surprising.   =20
> >> >> =20
> >> >> >From my point of view, that makes you the obnoxious insect, scuttl=
ing in to scavange a spot of personal gratification without making any kind=
 of useful contribution in the process. =20
> >> >>  =20
> >> >> Tit for tat often keeps a bully at bay, which is gratifying in its =
=20
> >> >> own right.=20
> >> >
> >> >That wasn't tit for tat, but an unreasonably offensive response to a =
minor provocation.=20
> >> =20
> >> You retaliate in your way and I'll retaliate in mine, thank you very =
=20
> >> much. =20
> >
> >You didn't need to "retaliate", and the response was out of all proporti=
on to the offense (such as it was).=20
> >   =20
> >> >> >> >>> I thought you'd died.=20
> >> >> >> >> =20
> >> >> >> >> That pretty much seems to go hand-in-hand with the rest of   =
 =20
> >> >> >> >> your "thinking". =20
> >> >> >> > =20
> >> >> >> >Wishful thinking is popular. I don't think Ian Fields is any   =
=20
> >> >> >> >more guilty of it than the rest of us. You - for instance -    =
=20
> >> >> >> >expect to be taken seriously. I'm not that optimistic. =20
> >> >> >>  =20
> >> >> >> With good reason.=20
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >If only I could earn a better audience ... =20
> >> >>=20
> >> >> Perhaps, then - with the reputation you've already earned around=20
> >> >> here in mind - a different venue might more nearly fit your needs? =
=20
> >> >=20
> >> >I'm perfectly happy with the more discriminating parts of this audien=
ce. Admittedly, the less discrimating part does discriminate, but on the ba=
sis of nationality and political affiliation, rather than on rational conte=
nt (which they can't actually process).
> >> =20
> >> All gobbledygook.
> >=20
> >As I said  - "which they can't actually process".
>=20
> >You've just taken the trouble to identify yourself as a member of the le=
ss discriminating part of s.e.d.
> >=20
> >> You've had rational content presented as evidence of your foibles on =
=20
> >> more than one occasion, and rather than confront the presenter with
> >> rational discourse and take the thumping you deserve when you've=20
> >> been unhorsed, you scurry away muttering epithets designed to kill
> >> the messenger.
> >
> >You idea of "rational content" was in fact your misapprehension dressed =
up in pretentious language. I spent quite a while trying to educate you abo=
ut what complex sentences actually meant, without achieving anything useful=
. Your memory displays you in a different - if totally implausible - role.
>=20
> He said she said...

Not exactly. I can read and write at a respectable level, and have a Ph.D. =
and a handful of published papers to prove it. You know all there is to kno=
w about the 555 (except that it is obsolete) and regularly demonstrate an i=
ncapacity to pares complex sentences - they look like gobbledygook to you. =
Your opinion doesn't carry much weight.

I'd fight to the death for your right to express it, but I'll also take ple=
asure in ridiculing it.

<snip>

--=20
Bill Sloman, Sydney

<haiticare2011@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:a5de8132-22b9-4b4f-8d6c-0ae77c767aa0@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:09:02 AM UTC-5, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I remember reading some while ago that LLL was working with fast 
>> switching
> snip
>
>>> You haven't stalked me for a while
>>
>> Watching a cockroach scamper across the floor is hardly stalking...
>
> Except that in this context, John Fields is the cockroach.

Getting back on topic..................

In the early days of WW2, radar pretty much started about 30MHz and up - 
before the cavity magnetron was developed, any worthwhile power was hard 
work beyond about 500MHz, these days some audio transistors can handle the 
bottom end of the range.

For very low power and detector inputs, UHF band IV/V go up to just under 
1GHz, there's also "hyperband" tuners - I think they operate between the 2 
GSM bands.

Then there's the transistors in satellite TV LNBs - somewhere around 12 - 
13GHz.

While sorting my downloads, I found a service manual for a solid state 
radar - it uses a gunn diode - most of the "solid state" is fairly common or 
garden op-amps.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:36:05 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 10 February 2014 11:34:02 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:34:13 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> >On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:02:00 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote: 
>> >> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:29:29 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman  
>> >> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> >> >On Sunday, 9 February 2014 18:47:16 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:  
>> >> >> On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:30:49 +1100, Bill Sloman   
>> >> >> <cutlersloman@tpg.com.au> wrote:  
>> >> >> >On 9/02/2014 10:46 AM, John Fields wrote: 
>> >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:20:44 -0000, "Ian Field" 
>> >> >> >> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote: 
>> >> >> >>> "John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message 
>> >> >> >>> news:juadf9p38kfvm23hg8qvpreulol46u0r44@4ax.com...  
>> >> >> >>>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:40:53 -0000, "Ian Field"  
>> >> >> >>>> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:   
> 
><snip>
>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Watching a cockroach scamper across the floor is hardly stalking...  
>> >> >> >  
>> >> >> >Except that in this context, John Fields is the cockroach.  
>> >> >>  
>> >> >> One would expect you'd feel that way, your parsing skills being what   
>> >> >> they are. 
>> >> > 
>> >> >On the contrary, parsing doesn't come into it. You intrude into a moderately technical discussion of waveguides with a totally irrelevant flame, and then get shirty when Ian Fields - not unreasonably - takes offense. 
>> >>   
>> >> My error then; it wasn't a question of parsing, it was a lack of 
>> >> reading comprehension which led you to miss the rancor in Field's:  
>> >> "I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my 
>> >> life story".   
>> >>  
>> >> Similar in tone to much of your own pretentious flap, the 
>> >> unconscious oversight is hardly surprising.   
>> >> 
>> >> >From my point of view, that makes you the obnoxious insect, scuttling in to scavange a spot of personal gratification without making any kind of useful contribution in the process. 
>> >>  
>> >> Tit for tat often keeps a bully at bay, which is gratifying in its 
>> >> own right.
>> >
>> >That wasn't tit for tat, but an unreasonably offensive response to a minor provocation.
>> 
>> You retaliate in your way and I'll retaliate in mine, thank you very 
>> much.
>
>You didn't need to "retaliate", and the response was out of all proportion to the offense (such as it was).
>   
>> >> >> >>> I thought you'd died. 
>> >> >> >>  
>> >> >> >> That pretty much seems to go hand-in-hand with the rest of your   
>>  >> >> >> "thinking".  
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >Wishful thinking is popular. I don't think Ian Fields is any more    
>> >> >> >guilty of it than the rest of us. You - for instance - expect to be    
>> >> >> >taken seriously. I'm not that optimistic.  
>> >> >>   
>> >> >> With good reason. 
>> >> > 
>> >> >If only I could earn a better audience ... 
>> >> 
>> >> Perhaps, then - with the reputation you've already earned around 
>> >> here in mind - a different venue might more nearly fit your needs? 
>> > 
>> >I'm perfectly happy with the more discriminating parts of this audience. Admittedly, the less discrimating part does discriminate, but on the basis of nationality and political affiliation, rather than on rational content (which they can't actually process).
>> 
>> All gobbledygook.
>
>As I said  - "which they can't actually process".
>You've just taken the trouble to identify yourself as a member of the less discriminating part of s.e.d.
> 
>> You've had rational content presented as evidence of your foibles on 
>> more than one occasion, and rather than confront the presenter with
>> rational discourse and take the thumping you deserve when you've 
>> been unhorsed, you scurry away muttering epithets designed to kill
>> the messenger.
>
>You idea of "rational content" was in fact your misapprehension dressed up in pretentious language. I spent quite a while trying to educate you about what complex sentences actually meant, without achieving anything useful. Your memory displays you in a different - if totally implausible - role.

---
He said she said...
---

>> >> Alt.usenet.kooks comes to mind...
>> >
>> >Not a venue I'm familiar with. Do tell me more about it - I imagine that you are a regular poster there. Probably as "Texan Cockroach".  
>>  
>> Rather than just letting your perverse imagination run wild, why not 
>> subscribe and find out for yourself?
>
>I've got all the kooks I need here, and I could be happier with a smaller collection.

---
Well, you're certainly no Sir Francis drake, so that's
understandable.
---

>> >Not an insect that my wife remembers too fondly.
>> 
>> No doubt she dislikes anything that stands its ground...
>
>Not a feature of their behaviour that she recalls - if they had been silly enough to stand their ground she would have used a fly-swat on them (which works, if you are quick, though cockroaches are more robust than flies).

On you, I suspect, she uses a subtler approach.

On Monday, 10 February 2014 11:34:02 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:34:13 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:=20
> >On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:02:00 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:=20
> >> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:29:29 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman =20
> >> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:=20
> >> >On Sunday, 9 February 2014 18:47:16 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote: =20
> >> >> On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:30:49 +1100, Bill Sloman  =20
> >> >> <cutlersloman@tpg.com.au> wrote: =20
> >> >> >On 9/02/2014 10:46 AM, John Fields wrote:=20
> >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:20:44 -0000, "Ian Field"=20
> >> >> >> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:=20
> >> >> >>> "John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message=
=20
> >> >> >>> news:juadf9p38kfvm23hg8qvpreulol46u0r44@4ax.com... =20
> >> >> >>>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:40:53 -0000, "Ian Field" =20
> >> >> >>>> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:  =20
=20
<snip>

> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Watching a cockroach scamper across the floor is hardly stalking=
... =20
> >> >> > =20
> >> >> >Except that in this context, John Fields is the cockroach. =20
> >> >> =20
> >> >> One would expect you'd feel that way, your parsing skills being wha=
t  =20
> >> >> they are.=20
> >> >=20
> >> >On the contrary, parsing doesn't come into it. You intrude into a mod=
erately technical discussion of waveguides with a totally irrelevant flame,=
 and then get shirty when Ian Fields - not unreasonably - takes offense.=20
> >>  =20
> >> My error then; it wasn't a question of parsing, it was a lack of=20
> >> reading comprehension which led you to miss the rancor in Field's: =20
> >> "I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my=20
> >> life story".  =20
> >> =20
> >> Similar in tone to much of your own pretentious flap, the=20
> >> unconscious oversight is hardly surprising.  =20
> >>=20
> >> >From my point of view, that makes you the obnoxious insect, scuttling=
 in to scavange a spot of personal gratification without making any kind of=
 useful contribution in the process.=20
> >> =20
> >> Tit for tat often keeps a bully at bay, which is gratifying in its=20
> >> own right.
> >
> >That wasn't tit for tat, but an unreasonably offensive response to a min=
or provocation.
>=20
> You retaliate in your way and I'll retaliate in mine, thank you very=20
> much.

You didn't need to "retaliate", and the response was out of all proportion =
to the offense (such as it was).
  =20
> >> >> >>> I thought you'd died.=20
> >> >> >> =20
> >> >> >> That pretty much seems to go hand-in-hand with the rest of your =
 =20
>  >> >> >> "thinking". =20
> >> >> >=20
> >> >> >Wishful thinking is popular. I don't think Ian Fields is any more =
  =20
> >> >> >guilty of it than the rest of us. You - for instance - expect to b=
e   =20
> >> >> >taken seriously. I'm not that optimistic. =20
> >> >>  =20
> >> >> With good reason.=20
> >> >=20
> >> >If only I could earn a better audience ...=20
> >>=20
> >> Perhaps, then - with the reputation you've already earned around=20
> >> here in mind - a different venue might more nearly fit your needs?=20
> >=20
> >I'm perfectly happy with the more discriminating parts of this audience.=
 Admittedly, the less discrimating part does discriminate, but on the basis=
 of nationality and political affiliation, rather than on rational content =
(which they can't actually process).
>=20
> All gobbledygook.

As I said  - "which they can't actually process".
You've just taken the trouble to identify yourself as a member of the less =
discriminating part of s.e.d.
=20
> You've had rational content presented as evidence of your foibles on=20
> more than one occasion, and rather than confront the presenter with
> rational discourse and take the thumping you deserve when you've=20
> been unhorsed, you scurry away muttering epithets designed to kill
> the messenger.

You idea of "rational content" was in fact your misapprehension dressed up =
in pretentious language. I spent quite a while trying to educate you about =
what complex sentences actually meant, without achieving anything useful. Y=
our memory displays you in a different - if totally implausible - role.
=20
> >> Alt.usenet.kooks comes to mind...
> >
> >Not a venue I'm familiar with. Do tell me more about it - I imagine that=
 you are a regular poster there. Probably as "Texan Cockroach". =20
> =20
> Rather than just letting your perverse imagination run wild, why not=20
> subscribe and find out for yourself?

I've got all the kooks I need here, and I could be happier with a smaller c=
ollection.

> >Not an insect that my wife remembers too fondly.
>=20
> No doubt she dislikes anything that stands its ground...

Not a feature of their behaviour that she recalls - if they had been silly =
enough to stand their ground she would have used a fly-swat on them (which =
works, if you are quick, though cockroaches are more robust than flies).

--=20
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Friday, February 7, 2014 8:09:02 AM UTC-5, haitic...@gmail.com wrote:
> I remember reading some while ago that LLL was working with fast switching 
snip

>> You haven't stalked me for a while
>
> Watching a cockroach scamper across the floor is hardly stalking...

Except that in this context, John Fields is the cockroach.

>> I thought you'd died. 

It brings a tear to my eye to hear old friends united again. :)

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:34:13 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:02:00 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:29:29 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman 
>> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, 9 February 2014 18:47:16 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote: 
>> >> On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:30:49 +1100, Bill Sloman  
>> >> <cutlersloman@tpg.com.au> wrote: 
>> >> >On 9/02/2014 10:46 AM, John Fields wrote: 
>> >> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:20:44 -0000, "Ian Field" 
>> >> >> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote: 
>> >> >>> "John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message 
>> >> >>> news:juadf9p38kfvm23hg8qvpreulol46u0r44@4ax.com... 
>> >> >>>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:40:53 -0000, "Ian Field" 
>> >> >>>> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:  
>> >> >  
>> >> > ><snip>
>> >> >
>> >> >>>>> I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my  
>> >> >>>>> life story. 
>> >> >>>>  
>> >> >>>> A wise move since low Q tends to damp a resonance instead of  
>> >> >>>> exalting it. 
>> >> >>> 
>> >> >>> You haven't stalked me for a while 
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Watching a cockroach scamper across the floor is hardly stalking...  
>> >> >  
>> >> >Except that in this context, John Fields is the cockroach. 
>> >>  
>> >> One would expect you'd feel that way, your parsing skills being what  
>> >> they are.
>> >
>> >On the contrary, parsing doesn't come into it. You intrude into a moderately technical discussion of waveguides with a totally irrelevant flame, and then get shirty when Ian Fields - not unreasonably - takes offense.
>>  
>> My error then; it wasn't a question of parsing, it was a lack of 
>> reading comprehension which led you to miss the rancor in Field's: 
>> "I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my
>> life story".  
>> 
>> Similar in tone to much of your own pretentious flap, the
>> unconscious oversight is hardly surprising.  
>> 
>> >From my point of view, that makes you the obnoxious insect, scuttling in to scavange a spot of personal gratification without making any kind of useful contribution in the process.
>> 
>> Tit for tat often keeps a bully at bay, which is gratifying in its 
>> own right.
>
>That wasn't tit for tat, but an unreasonably offensive response to a minor provocation.

---
You retaliate in your way and I'll retaliate in mine, thank you very
much.
---

 
>> >> >>> I thought you'd died. 
>> >> >>  
>> >> >> That pretty much seems to go hand-in-hand with the rest of your  
>> >> >> "thinking".  
>> >> > 
>> >> >Wishful thinking is popular. I don't think Ian Fields is any more guilty  
>> >> >of it than the rest of us. You - for instance - expect to be taken  
>> >> >seriously. I'm not that optimistic. 
>> >>   
>> >> With good reason.
>> > 
>> >If only I could earn a better audience ...
>> 
>> Perhaps, then - with the reputation you've already earned around 
>> here in mind - a different venue might more nearly fit your needs?
>
>I'm perfectly happy with the more discriminating parts of this audience. Admittedly, the less discrimating part does discriminate, but on the basis of nationality and political affiliation, rather than on rational content (which they can't actually process).

---
All gobbledygook.

You've had rational content presented as evidence of your foibles on
more than one occasion, and rather than confront the presenter with
rational discourse and take the thumping you deserve when you've
been unhorsed, you scurry away muttering epithets designed to kill
the messenger.
---
 
>> Alt.usenet.kooks comes to mind...
>
>Not a venue I'm familiar with. Do tell me more about it - I imagine that you are a regular poster there. Probably as "Texan Cockroach". 

---
Rather than just letting your perverse imagination run wild, why not
subscribe and find out for yourself?
--- 

>Not an insect that my wife remembers too fondly.

---
No doubt she dislikes anything that stands its ground...

On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:02:00 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:29:29 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman=20
> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sunday, 9 February 2014 18:47:16 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:=20
> >> On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:30:49 +1100, Bill Sloman =20
> >> <cutlersloman@tpg.com.au> wrote:=20
> >> >On 9/02/2014 10:46 AM, John Fields wrote:=20
> >> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:20:44 -0000, "Ian Field"=20
> >> >> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:=20
> >> >>> "John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message=20
> >> >>> news:juadf9p38kfvm23hg8qvpreulol46u0r44@4ax.com...=20
> >> >>>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:40:53 -0000, "Ian Field"=20
> >> >>>> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote: =20
> >> > =20
> >> > ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >>>>> I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my =
=20
> >> >>>>> life story.=20
> >> >>>> =20
> >> >>>> A wise move since low Q tends to damp a resonance instead of =20
> >> >>>> exalting it.=20
> >> >>>=20
> >> >>> You haven't stalked me for a while=20
> >> >>
> >> >> Watching a cockroach scamper across the floor is hardly stalking...=
 =20
> >> > =20
> >> >Except that in this context, John Fields is the cockroach.=20
> >> =20
> >> One would expect you'd feel that way, your parsing skills being what =
=20
> >> they are.
> >
> >On the contrary, parsing doesn't come into it. You intrude into a modera=
tely technical discussion of waveguides with a totally irrelevant flame, an=
d then get shirty when Ian Fields - not unreasonably - takes offense.
> =20
> My error then; it wasn't a question of parsing, it was a lack of=20
> reading comprehension which led you to miss the rancor in Field's:=20
> "I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my
> life story". =20
>=20
> Similar in tone to much of your own pretentious flap, the
> unconscious oversight is hardly surprising. =20
>=20
> >From my point of view, that makes you the obnoxious insect, scuttling in=
 to scavange a spot of personal gratification without making any kind of us=
eful contribution in the process.
>=20
> Tit for tat often keeps a bully at bay, which is gratifying in its=20
> own right.

That wasn't tit for tat, but an unreasonably offensive response to a minor =
provocation.
=20
> >> >>> I thought you'd died.=20
> >> >> =20
> >> >> That pretty much seems to go hand-in-hand with the rest of your =20
> >> >> "thinking". =20
> >> >=20
> >> >Wishful thinking is popular. I don't think Ian Fields is any more gui=
lty =20
> >> >of it than the rest of us. You - for instance - expect to be taken =
=20
> >> >seriously. I'm not that optimistic.=20
> >>  =20
> >> With good reason.
> >=20
> >If only I could earn a better audience ...
>=20
> Perhaps, then - with the reputation you've already earned around=20
> here in mind - a different venue might more nearly fit your needs?

I'm perfectly happy with the more discriminating parts of this audience. Ad=
mittedly, the less discrimating part does discriminate, but on the basis of=
 nationality and political affiliation, rather than on rational content (wh=
ich they can't actually process).
=20
> Alt.usenet.kooks comes to mind...

Not a venue I'm familiar with. Do tell me more about it - I imagine that yo=
u are a regular poster there. Probably as "Texan Cockroach". Not an insect =
that my wife remembers too fondly.

--=20
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:29:29 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, 9 February 2014 18:47:16 UTC+11, John Fields  wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:30:49 +1100, Bill Sloman 
>> <cutlersloman@tpg.com.au> wrote:
>> >On 9/02/2014 10:46 AM, John Fields wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:20:44 -0000, "Ian Field"
>> >> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >>> "John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
>> >>> news:juadf9p38kfvm23hg8qvpreulol46u0r44@4ax.com...
>> >>>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:40:53 -0000, "Ian Field" 
>> >>>> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote: 
>> > 
>> > ><snip>
>> >
>> >>>>> I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my life 
>> >>>>> story. 
>> >>>> 
>> >>>> A wise move since low Q tends to damp a resonance instead of 
>> >>>> exalting it. 
>> >>>
>> >>> You haven't stalked me for a while 
>> >>
>> >> Watching a cockroach scamper across the floor is hardly stalking... 
>> > 
>> >Except that in this context, John Fields is the cockroach.
>> 
>> One would expect you'd feel that way, your parsing skills being what 
>> they are.
>
>On the contrary, parsing doesn't come into it. You intrude into a moderately technical discussion of waveguides with a totally irrelevant flame, and then get shirty when Ian Fields - not unreasonably - takes offense.

---
My error then; it wasn't a question of parsing, it was a lack of
reading comprehension which led you to miss the rancor in Field's:
"I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my
life story".

Similar in tone to much of your own pretentious flap, the
unconscious oversight is hardly surprising. 
--- 

>From my point of view, that makes you the obnoxious insect, scuttling in to scavange a spot of personal gratification without making any kind of useful contribution in the process.

---
Tit for tat often keeps a bully at bay, which is gratifying in its
own right.
---


>> >>> I thought you'd died.
>> >> 
>> >> That pretty much seems to go hand-in-hand with the rest of your 
>> >> "thinking". 
>> >
>> >Wishful thinking is popular. I don't think Ian Fields is any more guilty  
>> >of it than the rest of us. You - for instance - expect to be taken  
>> >seriously. I'm not that optimistic.
>>  
>> With good reason.
>
>If only I could earn a better audience ...

---
Perhaps, then - with the reputation you've already earned around
here in mind - a different venue might more nearly fit your needs?

Alt.usenet.kooks comes to mind...