Reply by September 23, 20162016-09-23
On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 7:11:29 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 20:39:23 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 11:01:18 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:31:26 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> >On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 5:42:05 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:49:39 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:40:52 PM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> >> >> >> >On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:53:21 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > > > ><snip> > > > >> >> Assuming that you're able to control the context of what you write, > >> >> and knowing that "Luddite" carries a negative connotation means that > >> >> you agree, tacitly, that the comment was designed to be hurtful. > >> > > >> >It wasn't a positive endorsement, but the element of comic exaggeration minimises any pain it might have inflicted. > >> > >> "Comic exaggeration" isn't something you do well, and pretending that > >> you're a barrel of laughs when you're actively insulting someone is > >> ludicrous. > > > >I think you miss the point. Because the insult was exaggerated to a comical degree it was primarily comedy rather than insult. > > "Primarily comedy" implies that up to 50% of your post was intended as > an insult.
The insult was incidental to comedy. Find a non-insulting way of saying that you didn't know enough to track back up the thread to find an earlier post.
> I understand that mindset in terms of narcissism, but I'd appreciate > your explaining the degree of exaggeration required to turn an insult > into a joke.
Not so much an insult as a reprimand, though this forum isn't one that really accommodates reprimands. You were performing at less than your potential, so the local convention was to jeer at you, rather than recommend remedial training in googling.
> You might want to look into some of Don Rickles' routines for > edification.
I'd prefer not to. I could see why people thought him funny, but I didn't share their enthusiasm.
> ><snip > >> > > > >> >> >I may not be exactly where I want to be, but where I am is very > >> >> >comfortable. A paid job would be nice, but I've adapted to not having > >> >> > had one since 2003, and have found other ways to fill my time. This > >> >> >isn't one of the more constructive ones, but it keeps me amused. > >> >> > >> >> Win has written encyclical reference works, Jim Thompson's opinions > >> >> are used in courts of law to settle legal matters, and John Larkin > >> >> runs a multi-million dollar business. > >> > > >> >Win has written a popular test-book - which wouldn't have happened if he hadn't teamed up with Paul Horowitz. Jim Thompson has been producing more or less adequate integrated circuit designs for long enough that lawyers think that they can get away with trusting his opinions - my areas of expertise don't generate as much litigation. John Larkin runs a multi-million dollar business, but Donald Trump runs as multi-billion dollar business. Narcissism pays - or sounds as if it does if you listen the narcissist reporting on their own success. > > >> Well, according to you you're comfortable and, for you, denigrating > >> others' significant accomplishments. > > > >I don't think that pointing out that Win Hill's textbook wouldn't exist - or be as good as it is - without Paul Horowitz, actually denigrates Win Hill. > > I don't think that statement is accurate unless you can define the > role which Horowitz played in bringing the book(s) to life. > > Do you even know what that was?
It's been spelled out often enough. Horowitz was teaching electronics to physicists in a course at Harvard, and needed a text-book. He got together with Winfield Hill to put something together. The product is aimed at very bright students, which does limit its market as a student text, but it's proved very handy for bright students who graduated and needed something better than the text-books they'd been taught from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Horowitz
> Not only that, you take every opportunity to rag on Jim Thompson and > John Larkin and anyone who posts here who doesn't kow-tow to your > nonsensicalities and, even if they do, when they do, you go for the > throat with little but your own opinions as ammunition.
I do tend to support my opinions with references to better known authorities. Jim Thompson never does, and John Larkin irritates me by offering links to blatant denialist propaganda web sites. You don't seem to know enough to realise quite how much ammunition I can and do muster, let alone its calibre.
> Case in point, you dissed an LC oscillator of mine, even though you > found a choke, the inductance of which I specified, which would make > it work using the same topology, and yet you touted a POS discrete RC > astable which was clearly inferior to the RC circuit I posted in > response to your complaint.
The weak point of you POS simulation was that it specified a 500mH inductor with zero parallel capacitance, and the biggest off-the-shelf inductor I could find was 120mH with self-resonant frequency appreciably below 100kHz. The next part down the series, at 56mH, could be made to work. That's a lot less inductance. There's also a question about how many LTC1441 micro-power comparators would actually be fast enough to run at 100kHz. At least my BFR92-based astable would have worked, and didn't depend on a non-existent and probably impracticable component. <snipped lots of potentially interesting stuff - this thread has gone on much too long> -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by John Fields September 22, 20162016-09-22
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 20:39:23 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

>On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 11:01:18 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:31:26 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >> >On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 5:42:05 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:49:39 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:40:52 PM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:53:21 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > ><snip> > >> >> Assuming that you're able to control the context of what you write, >> >> and knowing that "Luddite" carries a negative connotation means that >> >> you agree, tacitly, that the comment was designed to be hurtful. >> > >> >It wasn't a positive endorsement, but the element of comic exaggeration minimises any pain it might have inflicted. >> >> "Comic exaggeration" isn't something you do well, and pretending that >> you're a barrel of laughs when you're actively insulting someone is >> ludicrous. > >I think you miss the point. Because the insult was exaggerated to a comical degree it was primarily comedy rather than insult.
--- "Primarily comedy" implies that up to 50% of your post was intended as an insult. I understand that mindset in terms of narcissism, but I'd appreciate your explaining the degree of exaggeration required to turn an insult into a joke. You might want to look into some of Don Rickles' routines for edification. ---
><snip >> > >> >> >I may not be exactly where I want to be, but where I am is very >> >> >comfortable. A paid job would be nice, but I've adapted to not having >> >> > had one since 2003, and have found other ways to fill my time. This >> >> >isn't one of the more constructive ones, but it keeps me amused. >> >> >> >> Win has written encyclical reference works, Jim Thompson's opinions >> >> are used in courts of law to settle legal matters, and John Larkin >> >> runs a multi-million dollar business. >> > >> >Win has written a popular test-book - which wouldn't have happened if he hadn't teamed up with Paul Horowitz. Jim Thompson has been producing more or less adequate integrated circuit designs for long enough that lawyers think that they can get away with trusting his opinions - my areas of expertise don't generate as much litigation. John Larkin runs a multi-million dollar business, but Donald Trump runs as multi-billion dollar business. Narcissism pays - or sounds as if it does if you listen the narcissist reporting on their own success. >> >> Well, according to you you're comfortable and, for you, denigrating >> others' significant accomplishments > >I don't think that pointing out that Win Hill's textbook wouldn't exist - or be as good as it is - without Paul Horowitz, actually denigrates Win Hill.
--- I don't think that statement is accurate unless you can define the role which Horowitz played in bringing the book(s) to life. Do you even know what that was? Not only that, you take every opportunity to rag on Jim Thompson and John Larkin and anyone who posts here who doesn't kow-tow to your nonsensicalities and, even if they do, when they do, you go for the throat with little but your own opinions as ammunition. Case in point, you dissed an LC oscillator of mine, even though you found a choke, the inductance of which I specified, which would make it work using the same topology, and yet you touted a POS discrete RC astable which was clearly inferior to the RC circuit I posted in response to your complaint. ---
>It does emphasise that there's a lot of fortunate juxtaposition in every successful career.
--- Touch&#2013265929;! :) ---
>> while exalting your failures indicates that you're right, narcissism pays. > >I don't recall exalting any of the failures I was involved in, and while if I'd had more influence on the way the work was done they might not have been failed the way they did, most high-tech projects do fail.
--- My point was that you exalt your failures by not taking responsibility for them and blaming them on everyone who found your work lacking. ---
>> >> And you? >> > >> >I'm comfortable. >> > >> >> You fritter away the time you have left tilting at windmills and being >> >> generally unpleasant. >> > >> >I do spend some if it job-hunting, and a bit more as a committee member for the NSW branch of the IEEE. I'm certainly specifically unpleasant from time to time, but I have also said nice things about people - even you (though not often).
--- Tit for tat on the nice. ---
>> >> Where are your memoirs, the books you could have written over the last >> >> 13 years, and the souls you could have inspired instead of trying to >> >> subjugate with your misanthropic demeanor? >> > >> >There is a book half-written on my hard disk. I took away my weekly reports for 1988-1991 project and have been through them with a view to turning them into a book. The first 18 months of the project were full of office politics, lies and mistakes, and that's easy to write up. The next eighteen months was tedious bug-hunting and bug fixing, which finally gave us pretty much the machine I'd promised back in 1988, but by then the market for it had shrunk to the point that it wouldn't have paid to put it into production. We might have got the machine I'd have preferred to have had built completed a little faster - particularly if the early development hadn't been wrecked by skipping design reviews - not my choice, not that I could get my head far enough above water to complain while it was going on. >> > >> >Writing up the whole process and making it interesting does seem to be beyond me. I was hoping that by leaving it sit for a year or so I might get a better perspective on the project as a whole, but my current feeling that I'd be better off writing up the first eighteen months as "One way to wreck a project". >> >> Juxtapose pathos and humor? >> >> It might work. > >I'd see it more as exhibiting ironic detachment.
--- Where's the irony? ---
>It's taken twenty-odd years for detachment to be accessible.
--- What detachment are you talking about? ---
>> >> >> >The original Luddites broke up machinery and burnt it, >> >> >> >whereas the people who don't like Google Groups merely shun the >> >> >> >service. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then, since the people who don't like Google Groups aren't actively >> >> >> reducing Google Groups to ashes, they're not Luddites. >> >> > >> >> >That was the joke. >> >> >> >> I fail to see where the humor lies, but perhaps you might explain the >> >> premise that makes the bit funny. >> > >> >Explaining jokes is a waste of time. >> >> Especially if there's no joke to explain. > >Particularly then. I'm of the opinion that there is a joke in there, but not every observer is equipped to perceive every possible joke.
--- So, explain the joke, be done with it, and let the leaves fall where they may. ---
>> >> >> >It may be an insult, but it's too divorced from historical reality to have any force. >> >> >> >> >> >> Through all of the wars we've been through on this planet, historical >> >> >> reality repeats, time after time, that an insult has force because of >> >> >> its author's lack of politeness. >> >> > >> >> >Not exactly. Insults only have force if they worry the person insulted. >> >> >> >> It's not a question of worry, it's a question of feelings of indignity >> >> brought about by a lack of respect. >> > >> >That's what I said. The insult is all in the reactions of the insulted. >> >> No, it isn't. >> >> The insult is a product of the mind of the insultor, and its purpose >> is to gain dominion over the intended target, the insultee. > >The perceived insult has been produced by the person whom the insultee imagines to have insulted them, but it wasn't an insult until the insultee took it that way.
--- So what you're saying is that, even though you intentionally flamed someone, they should just slough the insult off and keep you on the list of good guys? ---
>Some insults are more intentional than others, and others are incidental products of some completely >different intention.
--- Utter nonsense. All intentional insults are designed to hurt and, whether they're crafted to injure slightly, or to kill, they're still incidences of disrespect. And, in the context in which you couched your remark, "Luddite" is used in a derogatory manner, and was an intenional insult. ---
> >> >Politeness reflects local conventions, and an intrinsically inoffensive >> >> >comment delivered in a distainful manner may count as an insult in some cultures, >> >> >> >> If it's delivered in a disdainful manner, then that presentation, in >> >> itself, shows contempt or lack of respect in any culture. >> > >> >What counts as "distainful" depends on the culture of the person who feels distained. >> >> A slap in the face is a slap in the face no matter where you go. > >There are cultures where it isn't distainful, and we aren't talking about anything that even that unambiguous.
--- Which cultures are you referring to? Also, Your: "that even that ambiguous" shows you up as being churlish when the English languish is being used as a means of communication. OK, then, to get rid of the ambiguity, please explain how your comment wasn't conceived and delivered as an insult. ---
>> And, Bill, two "distainful"s in a row is hardly something you can >> slough off as typographical unless you really meant to use the archaic >> form. > >The complete Oxford lists both disdain and distain without referring to one as a variant of the other. "Disdain" gets more column inches. My internal lexicon may have been biassed by reading the wrong books. > >> >> >There's not a lot of culture around here, and most of the people who post >> >> >here have learned not to expect flowery language or elaborate >> >> > beating around the bush. >> >> >> >> So you've taught them to ignore you? >> > >> >That would be a non sequitur. >> >> Indeed, but they still mostly ignore you. > >If you say so. Some of my posts don't get any follow-ups, others do. > >> >> >> >> Second, obtaining the information isn't a question of capability, it's >> >> >> >> a question of utility in that I'd rather have you do the legwork of >> >> >> >> repeating information fresh in your mind than to go searching for it >> >> >> >> myself, and it worked. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >The utility of waiting a couple of hours for information that you could have found for yourself in less than a minute has to be questionable. >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't understand that "waiting a couple of hour for information" >> >> >> crack, but my point was that if I could get you to repost your links, by >> >> >> appealing to your vanity, you would. >> >> >> >> >> >> And, you did. >> >> > >> >> >Wasting my time, as well as your own, and presenting yourself as a dumb newbie in the process. I've taken care to paint you as incompetent for needing the help - I've had quite enough junior engineers trying to get me to do their jobs for them not to know the ploy, and I've had just as much practice in making them unlikely to try it a second time. >> >> >> >> And yet, you fell for it. >> > >> >You help the dumb newbie, rather than leaving them stuck, but you do try to motivate them to do better in future. It does happen to be one of the sci.electronic.design local conventions. I got told off for not conforming to it back in 1997, and I do see it as sensible. >> >> The dumb newbie? > >The convention. > >> You can't resist the narcissistic putdown but, in order to make your >> image seem gentle, you retract your horns, don wings, >> pretend to kindness, and post a little "heartfelt" nonsense narrative. >> You're no newbie, and neither am I, and you fell into my trap. > >You presented yourself as dumb, I pointed out that you were being dumb. > >Your "trap" has made you look stupid. > >> So what shall I do with you now that I own you? > >Cultivate some other harmless misapprehension? > >> >> Why would I even try if I could have my minions do it for me? >> > >> >Because you could have done it in about a minute, and you had to wait hours before I did it for you. >> >> Thanks for the compliment, but the response time wasn't at all that >> critical. > >In other words you were going into pointless posturing. > >> >Clearly, you didn't actually want the information, and wanted to have >> Van excuse for sitting on your hands. >> >> Not true, and after examining everything, I decided to use the RC, >> instead of the LC network for tuning. > >You aren't going to build the circuit, so your spent time making an inconsequential decision. > >> >It's not as if you have done anything with the information you asked for >> >> Even if that were true, so what? Asking for information doesn't incur >> an obligation on my part to use it as you see fit. > >Not using it at all means that you were frivolously wasting my time. If you ask for help, there is an implication that you actually need the help. > >> >- or if you have, it didn't give you the answer you wanted. >> >> Really? >> >> It certainly showed me that the discrete astable you championed lacked >> the crispy edges the square wave the OP asked for would have >> exhibited, and made me rethink LC VS RC. > >Since my consistent take on the OP's original request was that he hadn't thought enough about what he was asking for, the crispy edges that you imagine to be implied by his request for a square wave are just one more aspect of a poorly thought-out question. > >Real square waves always have finite 10% to 90% transition times. If you need the transition to occur within some finite time, you have to specify that time. The OP didn't. Specifying a 100kHz frequency implicitly sets the lower limit at lower than 5usec, and "square wave" may shave a microsecond or two off that, but 10uA and 5V left precious little room for anything faster.
Reply by September 17, 20162016-09-17
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 11:01:18 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:31:26 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > >On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 5:42:05 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:49:39 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:40:52 PM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> >> >> >On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:53:21 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
<snip>
> >> Assuming that you're able to control the context of what you write, > >> and knowing that "Luddite" carries a negative connotation means that > >> you agree, tacitly, that the comment was designed to be hurtful. > > > >It wasn't a positive endorsement, but the element of comic exaggeration minimises any pain it might have inflicted. > > "Comic exaggeration" isn't something you do well, and pretending that > you're a barrel of laughs when you're actively insulting someone is > ludicrous.
I think you miss the point. Because the insult was exaggerated to a comical degree it was primarily comedy rather than insult. <snip
>
> >> >I may not be exactly where I want to be, but where I am is very > >> >comfortable. A paid job would be nice, but I've adapted to not having > >> > had one since 2003, and have found other ways to fill my time. This > >> >isn't one of the more constructive ones, but it keeps me amused. > >> > >> Win has written encyclical reference works, Jim Thompson's opinions > >> are used in courts of law to settle legal matters, and John Larkin > >> runs a multi-million dollar business. > > > >Win has written a popular test-book - which wouldn't have happened if he hadn't teamed up with Paul Horowitz. Jim Thompson has been producing more or less adequate integrated circuit designs for long enough that lawyers think that they can get away with trusting his opinions - my areas of expertise don't generate as much litigation. John Larkin runs a multi-million dollar business, but Donald Trump runs as multi-billion dollar business. Narcissism pays - or sounds as if it does if you listen the narcissist reporting on their own success. > > Well, according to you you're comfortable and, for you, denigrating > others' significant accomplishments
I don't think that pointing out that Win Hill's textbook wouldn't exist - or be as good as it is - without Paul Horowitz, actually denigrates Win Hill. It does emphasise that there's a lot of fortunate juxtaposition in every successful career
> while exalting your failures indicates that you're right, narcissism pays.
I don't recall exalting any of the failures I was involved in, and while if I'd had more influence on the way the work was done they might not have been failed the way they did, most high-tech projects do fail.
> >> And you? > > > >I'm comfortable. > > > >> You fritter away the time you have left tilting at windmills and being > >> generally unpleasant. > > > >I do spend some if it job-hunting, and a bit more as a committee member for the NSW branch of the IEEE. I'm certainly specifically unpleasant from time to time, but I have also said nice things about people - even you (though not often). > > > >> Where are your memoirs, the books you could have written over the last > >> 13 years, and the souls you could have inspired instead of trying to > >> subjugate with your misanthropic demeanor? > > > >There is a book half-written on my hard disk. I took away my weekly reports for 1988-1991 project and have been through them with a view to turning them into a book. The first 18 months of the project were full of office politics, lies and mistakes, and that's easy to write up. The next eighteen months was tedious bug-hunting and bug fixing, which finally gave us pretty much the machine I'd promised back in 1988, but by then the market for it had shrunk to the point that it wouldn't have paid to put it into production. We might have got the machine I'd have preferred to have had built completed a little faster - particularly if the early development hadn't been wrecked by skipping design reviews - not my choice, not that I could get my head far enough above water to complain while it was going on. > > > >Writing up the whole process and making it interesting does seem to be beyond me. I was hoping that by leaving it sit for a year or so I might get a better perspective on the project as a whole, but my current feeling that I'd be better off writing up the first eighteen months as "One way to wreck a project". > > Juxtapose pathos and humor? > > It might work.
I'd see it more as exhibiting ironic detachment. It's taken twenty-odd years for detachment to be accessible.
> >> >> >The original Luddites broke up machinery and burnt it, > >> >> >whereas the people who don't like Google Groups merely shun the > >> >> >service. > >> >> > >> >> Then, since the people who don't like Google Groups aren't actively > >> >> reducing Google Groups to ashes, they're not Luddites. > >> > > >> >That was the joke. > >> > >> I fail to see where the humor lies, but perhaps you might explain the > >> premise that makes the bit funny. > > > >Explaining jokes is a waste of time. > > Especially if there's no joke to explain.
Particularly then. I'm of the opinion that there is a joke in there, but not every observer is equipped to perceive every possible joke.
> >> >> >It may be an insult, but it's too divorced from historical reality to have any force. > >> >> > >> >> Through all of the wars we've been through on this planet, historical > >> >> reality repeats, time after time, that an insult has force because of > >> >> its author's lack of politeness. > >> > > >> >Not exactly. Insults only have force if they worry the person insulted. > >> > >> It's not a question of worry, it's a question of feelings of indignity > >> brought about by a lack of respect. > > > >That's what I said. The insult is all in the reactions of the insulted. > > No, it isn't. > > The insult is a product of the mind of the insultor, and its purpose > is to gain dominion over the intended target, the insultee.
The perceived insult has been produced by the person whom the insultee imagines to have insulted them, but it wasn't an insult until the insultee took it that way. Some insults are more intentional than others, and others are incidental products of some completely different intention. You are insulted to the extent that you wish to feel insulted. Misconstruing intentional insults is an excellent way of undermining people who make them, and failing to see potential insults as insults is a useful diplomatic skill.
> >> >Politeness reflects local conventions, and an intrinsically inoffensive > >> >comment delivered in a distainful manner may count as an insult in some cultures, > >> > >> If it's delivered in a disdainful manner, then that presentation, in > >> itself, shows contempt or lack of respect in any culture. > > > >What counts as "distainful" depends on the culture of the person who feels distained. > > A slap in the face is a slap in the face no matter where you go.
There are cultures where it isn't distainful, and we aren't talking about anything that even that unambiguous.
> And, Bill, two "distainful"s in a row is hardly something you can > slough off as typographical unless you really meant to use the archaic > form.
The complete Oxford lists both disdain and distain without referring to one as a variant of the other. "Disdain" gets more column inches. My internal lexicon may have been biassed by reading the wrong books.
> >> >There's not a lot of culture around here, and most of the people who post > >> >here have learned not to expect flowery language or elaborate > >> > beating around the bush. > >> > >> So you've taught them to ignore you? > > > >That would be a non sequitur. > > Indeed, but they still mostly ignore you.
If you say so. Some of my posts don't get any follow-ups, others do.
> >> >> >> Second, obtaining the information isn't a question of capability, it's > >> >> >> a question of utility in that I'd rather have you do the legwork of > >> >> >> repeating information fresh in your mind than to go searching for it > >> >> >> myself, and it worked. > >> >> > > >> >> >The utility of waiting a couple of hours for information that you could have found for yourself in less than a minute has to be questionable. > >> >> > >> >> I don't understand that "waiting a couple of hour for information" > >> >> crack, but my point was that if I could get you to repost your links, by > >> >> appealing to your vanity, you would. > >> >> > >> >> And, you did. > >> > > >> >Wasting my time, as well as your own, and presenting yourself as a dumb newbie in the process. I've taken care to paint you as incompetent for needing the help - I've had quite enough junior engineers trying to get me to do their jobs for them not to know the ploy, and I've had just as much practice in making them unlikely to try it a second time. > >> > >> And yet, you fell for it. > > > >You help the dumb newbie, rather than leaving them stuck, but you do try to motivate them to do better in future. It does happen to be one of the sci.electronic.design local conventions. I got told off for not conforming to it back in 1997, and I do see it as sensible. > > The dumb newbie?
The convention.
> You can't resist the narcissistic putdown but, in order to make your > image seem gentle, you retract your horns, don wings, > pretend to kindness, and post a little "heartfelt" nonsense narrative. > You're no newbie, and neither am I, and you fell into my trap.
You presented yourself as dumb, I pointed out that you were being dumb. Your "trap" has made you look stupid.
> So what shall I do with you now that I own you?
Cultivate some other harmless misapprehension?
> >> Why would I even try if I could have my minions do it for me? > > > >Because you could have done it in about a minute, and you had to wait hours before I did it for you. > > Thanks for the compliment, but the response time wasn't at all that > critical.
In other words you were going into pointless posturing.
> >Clearly, you didn't actually want the information, and wanted to have > Van excuse for sitting on your hands. > > Not true, and after examining everything, I decided to use the RC, > instead of the LC network for tuning.
You aren't going to build the circuit, so your spent time making an inconsequential decision.
> >It's not as if you have done anything with the information you asked for > > Even if that were true, so what? Asking for information doesn't incur > an obligation on my part to use it as you see fit.
Not using it at all means that you were frivolously wasting my time. If you ask for help, there is an implication that you actually need the help.
> >- or if you have, it didn't give you the answer you wanted. > > Really? > > It certainly showed me that the discrete astable you championed lacked > the crispy edges the square wave the OP asked for would have > exhibited, and made me rethink LC VS RC.
Since my consistent take on the OP's original request was that he hadn't thought enough about what he was asking for, the crispy edges that you imagine to be implied by his request for a square wave are just one more aspect of a poorly thought-out question. Real square waves always have finite 10% to 90% transition times. If you need the transition to occur within some finite time, you have to specify that time. The OP didn't. Specifying a 100kHz frequency implicitly sets the lower limit at lower than 5usec, and "square wave" may shave a microsecond or two off that, but 10uA and 5V left precious little room for anything faster. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by John Fields September 16, 20162016-09-16
On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 22:31:26 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

>On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 5:42:05 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:49:39 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:40:52 PM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >> >> >On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:53:21 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>How come you couldn't manage that? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Manage what? Slogging through the mud looking for your footprints? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I probably could have, but I didn't want to waste my time - being >> >> >> >> elderly and cantankerous - by retracing your footsteps since you >> >> >> >> obviously had the information at hand. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >There weren't that many footprints to retrace - it wasn't all that far back up the thread - and the information was just as much to hand for you as it was for me. >> >> >> >> >> >> Not quite, since you were the author and, therefore, closer to the >> >> >> source. >> >> > >> >> >Google groups doesn't give me any kind of privileged access to my own posts. I could have found any of your posts just as easily. >> >> >> >> I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about your repost. >> > >> >In what context? What I posted was clearly identified as copied out of the post I'd made on the 31st August 2016. >> >> Precisely my point, which was that since the post was yours, and fresh >> in your mind, asking you to repost the link to it would save me the >> time and effort of tracking it down. > >Having it "fresh in my mind" didn't make a blind bit of difference to tracking up the thread to where it had to be. You could have done exactly the same job just as quickly. > >> >> >> >> >>Are you one of the Luddites who won't use Google Groups? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not at all, but you seem unable to engage in dialogue eschewing >> >> >> >> rancor. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem >> >> >> >> >> >> >It was purely curiousity. I didn't find it difficult to find the information that you couldn't, and found it difficult to understand why you hadn't been able to do it for yourself. >> >> >> >> >> >> First, if you claim pure curiosity, then you're not all that facile >> >> >> with the subtleties of the English language, since your use of the >> >> >> denigrating word, "Luddites", points to an agenda which is clearly >> >> >> not bounded by mere curiosity and was written as an insult. >> >> > >> >> >I was more interested in posting a comic exaggeration. >> >> >> >> But, even if that were true, your comment was designed to be hurtful >> >> instead of supportive. >> > >> >It was about as supportive as this context gets. >> >> Assuming that you're able to control the context of what you write, >> and knowing that "Luddite" carries a negative connotation means that >> you agree, tacitly, that the comment was designed to be hurtful. > >It wasn't a positive endorsement, but the element of comic exaggeration minimises any pain it might have inflicted.
--- "Comic exaggeration" isn't something you do well, and pretending that you're a barrel of laughs when you're actively insulting someone is ludicrous. ---
>> >> I understand that life has beat you up, and that you're resentful >> >> because you're not where you want to be and - considering your age - >> >> it's not likely that you can get there before you die, so why not give >> >> up the rancor and just count your blessings? >> > >> >If life has beaten me up, it has done it with velvet-covered clubs. >> >> But clubs, nonetheless, and the injuries caused by velvet-covered >> clubs sometimes never heal. > >I wouldn't know. I can't detect any persistent sore spots.
--- By now, you're callused and inure. ---
>> >I may not be exactly where I want to be, but where I am is very comfortable. >> >A paid job would be nice, but I've adapted to not having had one since 2003, >> >and found other ways to fill my time. This isn't one of the more >> >constructive ones, but it keeps me amused. >> >> Win has written encyclical reference works, Jim Thompson's opinions >> are used in courts of law to settle legal matters, and John Larkin >> runs a multi-million dollar business. > >Win has written a popular test-book - which wouldn't have happened if he hadn't teamed up with Paul Horowitz. Jim Thompson has been producing more or less adequate integrated circuit designs for long enough that lawyers think that they can get away with trusting his opinions - my areas of expertise don't generate as much litigation. John Larkin runs a multi-million dollar business, but Donald Trump runs as multi-billion dollar business. Narcissism pays - or sounds as if it does if you listen the narcissist reporting on their own success.
--- Well, according to you you're comfortable and, for you, denigrating others' significant accomplishments while exalting your failures indicates that you're right, narcissism pays. ---
>> And you? > >I'm comfortable. > >> You fritter away the time you have left tilting at windmills and being >> generally unpleasant. > >I do spend some if it job-hunting, and a bit more as a committee member for the NSW branch of the IEEE. I'm certainly specifically unpleasant from time to time, but I have also said nice things about people - even you (though not often). > >> Where are your memoirs, the books you could have written over the last >> 13 years, and the souls you could have inspired instead of trying to >> subjugate with your misanthropic demeanor? > >There is a book half-written on my hard disk. I took away my weekly reports for 1988-1991 project and have been through them with a view to turning them into a book. The first 18 months of the project were full of office politics, lies and mistakes, and that's easy to write up. The next eighteen months was tedious bug-hunting and bug fixing, which finally gave us pretty much the machine I'd promised back in 1988, but by then the market for it had shrunk to the point that it wouldn't have paid to put it into production. We might have got the machine I'd have preferred to have had built completed a little faster - particularly if the early development hadn't been wrecked by skipping design reviews - not my choice, not that I could get my head far enough above water to complain while it was going on. > >Writing up the whole process and making it interesting does seem to be beyond me. I was hoping that by leaving it sit for a year or so I might get a better perspective on the project as a whole, but my current feeling that I'd be better off writing up the first eighteen months as "One way to wreck a project".
--- Juxtapose pathos and humor? It might work. ---
>> >> >The original Luddites broke up machinery and burnt it, >> >> >whereas the people who don't like Google Groups merely shun the service. >> >> >> >> Then, since the people who don't like Google Groups aren't actively >> >> reducing Google Groups to ashes, they're not Luddites. >> > >> >That was the joke. >> >> I fail to see where the humor lies, but perhaps you might explain the >> premise that makes the bit funny. > >Explaining jokes is a waste of time.
--- Especially if there's no joke to explain. ---
>> >> >It may be an insult, but it's too divorced from historical reality to have any force. >> >> >> >> Through all of the wars we've been through on this planet, historical >> >> reality repeats, time after time, that an insult has force because of >> >> its author's lack of politeness. >> > >> >Not exactly. Insults only have force if they worry the person insulted. >> >> It's not a question of worry, it's a question of feelings of indignity >> brought about by a lack of respect. > >That's what I said. The insult is all in the reactions of the insulted.
--- No, it isn't. The insult is a product of the mind of the insultor, and its purpose is to gain dominion over the intended target, the insultee. ---
>> >Politeness reflects local conventions, and an intrinsically inoffensive >> >comment delivered in a distainful manner may count as an insult in some cultures, >> >> If it's delivered in a disdainful manner, then that presentation, in >> itself, shows contempt or lack of respect in any culture. > >What counts as "distainful" depends on the culture of the person who feels distained.
--- A slap in the face is a slap in the face no matter where you go. And, Bill, two "distainful"s in a row is hardly something you can slough off as typographical unless you really meant to use the archic form. ---
>> >There's not a lot of culture around here, and most of the people who post >> >here have learned not to expect flowery language or elaborate >> > beating around the bush. >> >> So you've taught them to ignore you? > >That would be a non sequitur.
--- Indeed, but they still mostly ignore you. ---
>> >> >> Second, obtaining the information isn't a question of capability, it's >> >> >> a question of utility in that I'd rather have you do the legwork of >> >> >> repeating information fresh in your mind than to go searching for it >> >> >> myself, and it worked. >> >> > >> >> >The utility of waiting a couple of hours for information that you could have found for yourself in less than a minute has to be questionable. >> >> >> >> I don't understand that "waiting a couple of hour for information" crack, >> >> but my point was that if I could get you to repost your links, by >> >> appealing to your vanity, you would. >> >> >> >> And, you did. >> > >> >Wasting my time, as well as your own, and presenting yourself as a dumb newbie in the process. I've taken care to paint you as incompetent for needing the help - I've had quite enough junior engineers trying to get me to do their jobs for them not to know the ploy, and I've had just as much practice in making them unlikely to try it a second time. >> >> And yet, you fell for it. > >You help the dumb newbie, rather than leaving them stuck, but you do try to motivate them to do better in future. It does happen to be one of the sci.electronic.design local conventions. I got told off for not conforming to it back in 1997, and I do see it as sensible.
--- The dumb newbie? You can't resist the narcissistic putdown but, in order to make your image seem gentle, you retract your horns, don wings, pretend to kindness, and post a little "heartfelt" nonsense narrative. You're no newbie, and neither am I, and you fell into my trap. So what shall I do with you now that I pwn you? ---
>> Why would I even try if I could have my minions do it for me? > >Because you could have done it in about a minute, and you had to wait hours before I did it for you.
--- Thanks for the compliment, but the response time wasn't at all that critical. ---
>Clearly, you didn't actually want the information, and wanted to have
Van excuse for sitting on your hands. --- Not true, and after examining everything, I decided to use the RC, instead of the LC network for tuning.
> >It's not as if you have done anything with the information you asked for
--- Even if that were true, so what? asking for information doesn't incur an obligation on my part to use it as you see fit. ---
>- or if you have it didn't give you the answer you wanted.
--- Really? It certainly showed me that the discrete astable you championed lacked the crispy edges the square wave the OP asked for would have exhibited, and made me rethink LC VS RC. John Fields
Reply by September 16, 20162016-09-16
On Friday, September 16, 2016 at 5:42:05 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:49:39 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:40:52 PM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> >> >On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:53:21 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >> >>How come you couldn't manage that? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Manage what? Slogging through the mud looking for your footprints? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I probably could have, but I didn't want to waste my time - being > >> >> >> elderly and cantankerous - by retracing your footsteps since you > >> >> >> obviously had the information at hand. > >> >> > > >> >> >There weren't that many footprints to retrace - it wasn't all that far back up the thread - and the information was just as much to hand for you as it was for me. > >> >> > >> >> Not quite, since you were the author and, therefore, closer to the > >> >> source. > >> > > >> >Google groups doesn't give me any kind of privileged access to my own posts. I could have found any of your posts just as easily. > >> > >> I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about your repost. > > > >In what context? What I posted was clearly identified as copied out of the post I'd made on the 31st August 2016. > > Precisely my point, which was that since the post was yours, and fresh > in your mind, asking you to repost the link to it would save me the > time and effort of tracking it down.
Having it "fresh in my mind" didn't make a blind bit of difference to tracking up the thread to where it had to be. You could have done exactly the same job just as quickly.
> >> >> >> >>Are you one of the Luddites who won't use Google Groups? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Not at all, but you seem unable to engage in dialogue eschewing > >> >> >> rancor. > >> >> > >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > >> >> > >> >> >It was purely curiousity. I didn't find it difficult to find the information that you couldn't, and found it difficult to understand why you hadn't been able to do it for yourself. > >> >> > >> >> First, if you claim pure curiosity, then you're not all that facile > >> >> with the subtleties of the English language, since your use of the > >> >> denigrating word, "Luddites", points to an agenda which is clearly > >> >> not bounded by mere curiosity and was written as an insult. > >> > > >> >I was more interested in posting a comic exaggeration. > >> > >> But, even if that were true, your comment was designed to be hurtful > >> instead of supportive. > > > >It was about as supportive as this context gets. > > Assuming that you're able to control the context of what you write, > and knowing that "Luddite" carries a negative connotation means that > you agree, tacitly, that the comment was designed to be hurtful.
It wasn't a positive endorsement, but the element of comic exaggeration minimises any pain it might have inflicted.
> >> I understand that life has beat you up, and that you're resentful > >> because you're not where you want to be and - considering your age - > >> it's not likely that you can get there before you die, so why not give > >> up the rancor and just count your blessings? > > > >If life has beaten me up, it has done it with velvet-covered clubs. > > But clubs, nonetheless, and the injuries caused by velvet-covered > clubs sometimes never heal.
I wouldn't know. I can't detect any persistent sore spots.
> >I may not be exactly where I want to be, but where I am is very comfortable. > >A paid job would be nice, but I've adapted to not having had one since 2003, > >and found other ways to fill my time. This isn't one of the more > >constructive ones, but it keeps me amused. > > Win has written encyclical reference works, Jim Thompson's opinions > are used in courts of law to settle legal matters, and John Larkin > runs a multi-million dollar business.
Win has written a popular test-book - which wouldn't have happened if he hadn't teamed up with Paul Horowitz. Jim Thompson has been producing more or less adequate integrated circuit designs for long enough that lawyers think that they can get away with trusting his opinions - my areas of expertise don't generate as much litigation. John Larkin runs a multi-million dollar business, but Donald Trump runs as multi-billion dollar business. Narcissism pays - or sounds as if it does if you listen the narcissist reporting on their own success.
> And you?
I'm comfortable.
> You fritter away the time you have left tilting at windmills and being > generally unpleasant.
I do spend some if it job-hunting, and a bit more as a committee member for the NSW branch of the IEEE. I'm certainly specifically unpleasant from time to time, but I have also said nice things about people - even you (though not often).
> Where are your memoirs, the books you could have written over the last > 13 years, and the souls you could have inspired instead of trying to > subjugate with your misanthropic demeanor?
There is a book half-written on my hard disk. I took away my weekly reports for 1988-1991 project and have been through them with a view to turning them into a book. The first 18 months of the project were full of office politics, lies and mistakes, and that's easy to write up. The next eighteen months was tedious bug-hunting and bug fixing, which finally gave us pretty much the machine I'd promised back in 1988, but by then the market for it had shrunk to the point that it wouldn't have paid to put it into production. We might have got the machine I'd have preferred to have had built completed a little faster - particularly if the early development hadn't been wrecked by skipping design reviews - not my choice, not that I could get my head far enough above water to complain while it was going on. Writing up the whole process and making it interesting does seem to be beyond me. I was hoping that by leaving it sit for a year or so I might get a better perspective on the project as a whole, but my current feeling that I'd be better off writing up the first eighteen months as "One way to wreck a project".
> >> >The original Luddites broke up machinery and burnt it, > >> >whereas the people who don't like Google Groups merely shun the service. > >> > >> Then, since the people who don't like Google Groups aren't actively > >> reducing Google Groups to ashes, they're not Luddites. > > > >That was the joke. > > I fail to see where the humor lies, but perhaps you might explain the > premise that makes the bit funny.
Explaining jokes is a waste of time.
> >> >It may be an insult, but it's too divorced from historical reality to have any force. > >> > >> Through all of the wars we've been through on this planet, historical > >> reality repeats, time after time, that an insult has force because of > >> its author's lack of politeness. > > > >Not exactly. Insults only have force if they worry the person insulted. > > It's not a question of worry, it's a question of feelings of indignity > brought about by a lack of respect.
That's what I said. The insult is all in the reactions of the insulted.
> >Politeness reflects local conventions, and an intrinsically inoffensive > >comment delivered in a distainful manner may count as an insult in some cultures, > > If it's delivered in a disdainful manner, then that presentation, in > itself, shows contempt or lack of respect in any culture.
What counts as "distainful" depends on the culture of the person who feels distained.
> >There's not a lot of culture around here, and most of the people who post > >here have learned not to expect flowery language or elaborate > > beating around the bush. > > So you've taught them to ignore you?
That would be a non sequitur.
> >> >> Second, obtaining the information isn't a question of capability, it's > >> >> a question of utility in that I'd rather have you do the legwork of > >> >> repeating information fresh in your mind than to go searching for it > >> >> myself, and it worked. > >> > > >> >The utility of waiting a couple of hours for information that you could have found for yourself in less than a minute has to be questionable. > >> > >> I don't understand that "waiting a couple of hour for information" crack, > >> but my point was that if I could get you to repost your links, by > >> appealing to your vanity, you would. > >> > >> And, you did. > > > >Wasting my time, as well as your own, and presenting yourself as a dumb newbie in the process. I've taken care to paint you as incompetent for needing the help - I've had quite enough junior engineers trying to get me to do their jobs for them not to know the ploy, and I've had just as much practice in making them unlikely to try it a second time. > > And yet, you fell for it.
You help the dumb newbie, rather than leaving them stuck, but you do try to motivate them to do better in future. It does happen to be one of the sci.electronic.design local conventions. I got told off for not conforming to it back in 1997, and I do see it as sensible.
> >> >> >The problem here is that I was curious as to why you couldn't do something that any human being with a working brain should have found easy. > >> >> > >> >> Not "couldn't", but "wouldn't" since you weren't polite. > >> > > >> >You didn't do the work yourself, and waited hours for the answer. That may have been "wouldn't" because you were procrastinating, but I was being charitable. > >> > >> What work are you talking about? > > > >Finding the url that you couldn't, or wouldn't, and hadn't. > > Why would I even try if I could have my minions do it for me?
Because you could have done it in about a minute, and you had to wait hours before I did it for you. Clearly, you didn't actually want the information, and wanted to have an excuse for sitting on your hands. It's not as if you have done anything with the information you asked for - or if you have it didn't give you the answer you wanted. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by John Fields September 15, 20162016-09-15
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:49:39 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

>On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:40:52 PM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >> >On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:53:21 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>How come you couldn't manage that? >> >> >> >> >> >> Manage what? Slogging through the mud looking for your footprints? >> >> >> >> >> >> I probably could have, but I didn't want to waste my time - being >> >> >> elderly and cantankerous - by retracing your footsteps since you >> >> >> obviously had the information at hand. >> >> > >> >> >There weren't that many footprints to retrace - it wasn't all that far back up the thread - and the information was just as much to hand for you as it was for me. >> >> >> >> Not quite, since you were the author and, therefore, closer to the >> >> source. >> > >> >Google groups doesn't give me any kind of privileged access to my own posts. I could have found any of your posts just as easily. >> >> I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about your repost. > >In what context? What I posted was clearly identified as copied out of the post I'd made on the 31st August 2016.
--- Precisely my point, which was that since the post was yours, and fresh in your mind, asking you to repost the link to it would save me the time and effort of tracking it down. ---
>> >> >> >>Are you one of the Luddites who won't use Google Groups? >> >> >> >> >> >> Not at all, but you seem unable to engage in dialogue eschewing >> >> >> rancor. >> >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem >> >> >> >> >It was purely curiousity. I didn't find it difficult to find the information that you couldn't, and found it difficult to understand why you hadn't been able to do it for yourself. >> >> >> >> First, if you claim pure curiosity, then you're not all that facile >> >> with the subtleties of the English language, since your use of the >> >> denigrating word, "Luddites", points to an agenda which is clearly >> >> not bounded by mere curiosity and was written as an insult. >> > >> >I was more interested in posting a comic exaggeration. >> >> But, even if that were true, your comment was designed to be hurtful >> instead of supportive. > >It was about as supportive as this context gets.
--- Assuming that you're able to control the context of what you write, and knowing that "Luddite" carries a negative connotation means that you agree, tacitly, that the comment was designed to be hurtful. ---
>> I understand that life has beat you up, and that you're resentful >> because you're not where you want to be and - considering your age - >> it's not likely that you can get there before you die, so why not give >> up the rancor and just count your blessings? > >If life has beaten me up, it has done it with velvet-covered clubs.
--- But clubs, nonetheless, and the injuries caused by velvet-covered clubs sometimes never heal. ---
>I may not be exactly where I want to be, but where I am is very comfortable. >A paid job would be nice, but I've adapted to not having had one since 2003, >and found other ways to fill my time. This isn't one of the more constructive >ones, but it keeps me amused.
--- Win has written encyclical reference works, Jim Thompson's opinions are used in courts of law to settle legal matters, and John Larkin runs a multi-million dollar business. And you? You fritter away the time you have left tilting at windmills and being generally unpleasant. Where are your memoirs, the books you could have written over the last 13 years, and the souls you could have inspired instead of trying to subjugate with your misanthropic demeanor? ---
>> >The original Luddites broke up machinery and burnt it, >> >whereas the people who don't like Google Groups merely shun the service. >> >> Then, since the people who don't like Google Groups aren't actively >> reducing Google Groups to ashes, they're not Luddites. > >That was the joke.
--- I fail to see where the humor lies, but perhaps you might explain the premise that makes the bit funny. ---
>> >It may be an insult, but it's too divorced from historical reality to have any force. >> >> Through all of the wars we've been through on this planet, historical >> reality repeats, time after time, that an insult has force because of >> its author's lack of politeness. > >Not exactly. Insults only have force if they worry the person insulted.
--- It's not a question of worry, it's a question of feelings of indignity brought about by a lack of respect. ---
>Politeness reflects local conventions, and an intrinsically inoffensive >comment delivered in a distainful manner may count as an insult in some cultures,
--- If it's delivered in a disdainful manner, then that presentation, in itself, shows contempt or lack of respect in any culture. ---
>There's not a lot of culture around here, and most of the people who post here >have learned not to expect flowery language or elaborate beating around the bush.
--- So you've taught them to ignore you? ---
> >> >> Second, obtaining the information isn't a question of capability, it's >> >> a question of utility in that I'd rather have you do the legwork of >> >> repeating information fresh in your mind than to go searching for it >> >> myself, and it worked. >> > >> >The utility of waiting a couple of hours for information that you could have found for yourself in less than a minute has to be questionable. >> >> I don't understand that "waiting a couple of hour for information" crack, but >> my point was that if I could get you to repost your links, by >> appealing to your vanity, you would. >> >> And, you did. > >Wasting my time, as well as your own, and presenting yourself as a dumb newbie in the process. I've taken care to paint you as incompetent for needing the help - I've had quite enough junior engineers trying to get me to do their jobs for them not to know the ploy, and I've had just as much practice in making them unlikely to try it a second time.
--- And yet, you fell for it. ---
>> >> >The problem here is that I was curious as to why you couldn't do something that any human being with a working brain should have found easy. >> >> >> >> Not "couldn't", but "wouldn't" since you weren't polite. >> > >> >You didn't do the work yourself, and waited hours for the answer. That may have been "wouldn't" because you were procrastinating, but I was being charitable. >> >> What work are you talking about? > >Finding the url that you couldn't, or wouldn't, and hadn't.
--- Why would I even try if I could have my minions do it for me? John Fields
Reply by September 15, 20162016-09-15
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 2:40:52 PM UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > >> >On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:53:21 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > >> > >> >> >>How come you couldn't manage that? > >> >> > >> >> Manage what? Slogging through the mud looking for your footprints? > >> >> > >> >> I probably could have, but I didn't want to waste my time - being > >> >> elderly and cantankerous - by retracing your footsteps since you > >> >> obviously had the information at hand. > >> > > >> >There weren't that many footprints to retrace - it wasn't all that far back up the thread - and the information was just as much to hand for you as it was for me. > >> > >> Not quite, since you were the author and, therefore, closer to the > >> source. > > > >Google groups doesn't give me any kind of privileged access to my own posts. I could have found any of your posts just as easily. > > I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about your repost.
In what context? What I posted was clearly identified as copied out of the post I'd made on the 31st August 2016.
> >> >> >>Are you one of the Luddites who won't use Google Groups? > >> >> > >> >> Not at all, but you seem unable to engage in dialogue eschewing > >> >> rancor. > >> > >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > >> > >> >It was purely curiousity. I didn't find it difficult to find the information that you couldn't, and found it difficult to understand why you hadn't been able to do it for yourself. > >> > >> First, if you claim pure curiosity, then you're not all that facile > >> with the subtleties of the English language, since your use of the > >> denigrating word, "Luddites", points to an agenda which is clearly > >> not bounded by mere curiosity and was written as an insult. > > > >I was more interested in posting a comic exaggeration. > > But, even if that were true, your comment was designed to be hurtful > instead of supportive.
It was about as supportive as this context gets.
> I understand that life has beat you up, and that you're resentful > because you're not where you want to be and - considering your age - > it's not likely that you can get there before you die, so why not give > up the rancor and just count your blessings?
If life has beaten me up, it has done it with velvet-covered clubs. I may not be exactly where I want to be, but where I am is very comfortable. A paid job would be nice, but I've adapted to not having had one since 2003, and found other ways to fill my time. This isn't one of the more constructive ones, but it keeps me amused.
> >The original Luddites broke up machinery and burnt it, > >whereas the people who don't like Google Groups merely shun the service. > > Then, since the people who don't like Google Groups aren't actively > reducing Google Groups to ashes, they're not Luddites.
That was the joke.
> >It may be an insult, but it's too divorced from historical reality to have any force. > > Through all of the wars we've been through on this planet, historical > reality repeats, time after time, that an insult has force because of > its author's lack of politeness.
Not exactly. Insults only have force if they worry the person insulted. Politeness reflects local conventions, and an intrinsically inoffensive comment delivered in a distainful manner may count as an insult in some cultures, There's not a lot of culture around here, and most of the people who post here have learned not to expect flowery language or elaborate beating around the bush.
> >> Second, obtaining the information isn't a question of capability, it's > >> a question of utility in that I'd rather have you do the legwork of > >> repeating information fresh in your mind than to go searching for it > >> myself, and it worked. > > > >The utility of waiting a couple of hours for information that you could have found for yourself in less than a minute has to be questionable. > > I don't understand that "waiting a couple of hour for information" crack, but > my point was that if I could get you to repost your links, by > appealing to your vanity, you would. > > And, you did.
Wasting my time, as well as your own, and presenting yourself as a dumb newbie in the process. I've taken care to paint you as incompetent for needing the help - I've had quite enough junior engineers trying to get me to do their jobs for them not to know the ploy, and I've had just as much practice in making them unlikely to try it a second time.
> >> >The problem here is that I was curious as to why you couldn't do something that any human being with a working brain should have found easy. > >> > >> Not "couldn't", but "wouldn't" since you weren't polite. > > > >You didn't do the work yourself, and waited hours for the answer. That may have been "wouldn't" because you were procrastinating, but I was being charitable. > > What work are you talking about?
Finding the url that you couldn't, or wouldn't, and hadn't. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by John Fields September 15, 20162016-09-15
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:00:35 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

>On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: >> >> >On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:53:21 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: >> >> >> >> >>How come you couldn't manage that? >> >> >> >> Manage what? Slogging through the mud looking for your footprints? >> >> >> >> I probably could have, but I didn't want to waste my time - being >> >> elderly and cantankerous - by retracing your footsteps since you >> >> obviously had the information at hand. >> > >> >There weren't that many footprints to retrace - it wasn't all that far back up the thread - and the information was just as much to hand for you as it was for me. >> >> Not quite, since you were the author and, therefore, closer to the >> source. > >Google groups doesn't give me any kind of privileged access to my own posts. I could have found any of your posts just as easily.
--- I wasn't talking about that, I was talking about your repost. ---
>> >> >>Are you one of the Luddites who won't use Google Groups? >> >> >> >> Not at all, but you seem unable to engage in dialogue eschewing >> >> rancor. >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem >> >> >It was purely curiousity. I didn't find it difficult to find the information that you couldn't, and found it difficult to understand why you hadn't been able to do it for yourself. >> >> First, if you claim pure curiosity, then you're not all that facile >> with the subtleties of the English language, since your use of the >> denigrating word, "Luddites", points to an agenda which is clearly >> not bounded by mere curiosity and was written as an insult. > > >I was more interested in posting a comic exaggeration.
--- But, even if that were true, your comment was designed to be hurtful instead of supportive. I understand that life has beat you up, and that you're resentful because you're not where you want to be and - considering your age - it's not likely that you can get there before you die, so why not give up the rancor and just count your blessings? ---
>The original Luddites broke up machinery and burnt it, >whereas the people who don't like Google Groups merely shun the service.
--- Then, since the people who don't like Google Groups aren't actively reducing Google Groups to ashes, they're not Luddites. ---
>It may be an insult, but it's too divorced from historical reality to have any force.
--- Through all of the wars we've been through on this planet, historical reality repeats, time after time, that an insult has force because of its author's lack of politeness. ---
>> Second, obtaining the information isn't a question of capability, it's >> a question of utility in that I'd rather have you do the legwork of >> repeating information fresh in your mind than to go searching for it >> myself, and it worked. > >The utility of waiting a couple of hounformation that you could have found for yourself in less than a minute has to be questionable.
--- I don't understand that "waiting a couple of hounformation" crack, but my point was that if I could get you to repost your links, by appealing to your vanity, you would. And, you did. ---
>> >The problem here is that I was curious as to why you couldn't do something that any human being with a working brain should have found easy. >> >> Not "couldn't", but "wouldn't" since you weren't polite. > >You didn't do the work yourself, and waited hours for the answer. That may have been "wouldn't" because you were procrastinating, but I was being charitable.
--- What work are you talking about? John Fields
Reply by September 14, 20162016-09-14
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:58:49 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 17:52:04 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote: > > >On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:53:21 AM UTC+10, John Fields wrote: > > > >> >>How come you couldn't manage that? > >> > >> Manage what? Slogging through the mud looking for your footprints? > >> > >> I probably could have, but I didn't want to waste my time - being > >> elderly and cantankerous - by retracing your footsteps since you > >> obviously had the information at hand. > > > >There weren't that many footprints to retrace - it wasn't all that far back up the thread - and the information was just as much to hand for you as it was for me. > > Not quite, since you were the author and, therefore, closer to the > source.
Google groups doesn't give me any kind of privileged access to my own posts. I could have found any of your posts just as easily.
> >> >>Are you one of the Luddites who won't use Google Groups? > >> > >> Not at all, but you seem unable to engage in dialogue eschewing > >> rancor. > > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem > > >It was purely curiousity. I didn't find it difficult to find the information that you couldn't, and found it difficult to understand why you hadn't been able to do it for yourself. > > First, if you claim pure curiosity, then you're not all that facile > with the subtleties of the English language, since your use of the > denigrating word, "Luddites", points to an agenda which is clearly > not bounded by mere curiosity and was written as an insult.
I was more interested in posting a comic exaggeration. The original Luddites broke up machinery and burnt it, whereas the people who don't like Google Groups merely shun the service. It may be an insult, but it's too divorced from historical reality to have any force.
> Second, obtaining the information isn't a question of capability, it's > a question of utility in that I'd rather have you do the legwork of > repeating information fresh in your mind than to go searching for it > myself, and it worked.
The utility of waiting a couple of hours for information that you could have found for yourself in less than a minute has to be questionable. It looks more like procrastination than simple idleness. <snip>
> >The problem here is that I was curious as to why you couldn't do something that any human being with a working brain should have found easy. > > Not "couldn't", but "wouldn't" since you weren't polite.
You didn't do the work yourself, and waited hours for the answer. That may have been "wouldn't" because you were procrastinating, but I was being charitable. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by John Fields September 14, 20162016-09-14
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:42:02 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:18:48 -0700 (PDT), George Herold ><gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > >>On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 2:31:43 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2016 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Phil Hobbs >>> <pcdhobbs@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>Go for the record. >>> > >>> >Here they were, two old pals innocently trash talking each other and mostly leaving the other threads alone, and you had to spoil it. ;) >>> > >>> >Cheers >>> > >>> >Phil Hobbs >>> >>> No, no, I'm encouraging them to stay in this thread and run up the >>> count. I mean, it's not difficult; just keep repeating the same few >>> lame insults. >>> >>> I think they should run up the thread count to 555. >> >>Not that I think it's time to call Guinness, >>but is there a flame war record? >> >>George H. > >Don't rush them. Give them a couple more years to work on it. > >Recycling lame, pointless insults does seem to amuse them.
--- As usual, your narcissistic view of reality forces you to condemn what you couldn't possibly ken.