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. 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.> > >>> 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 ... -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Radar generating transistor circuit?
Started by ●February 7, 2014
Reply by ●February 9, 20142014-02-09
Reply by ●February 9, 20142014-02-09
In article <52f70479$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, cutlersloman@tpg.com.au says...> > 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. > > >> 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.Congratulations, you finally made a statement that, at lest for me, I can agree with. If you keep up with unexpected trait, you may one day graduate into something that is communically worth while to shred time for. Jamie
Reply by ●February 9, 20142014-02-09
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...
Reply by ●February 9, 20142014-02-09
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
Reply by ●February 9, 20142014-02-09
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...
Reply by ●February 9, 20142014-02-09
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 switchingsnip>> 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. :)
Reply by ●February 9, 20142014-02-09
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
Reply by ●February 10, 20142014-02-10
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.
Reply by ●February 10, 20142014-02-10
<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.
Reply by ●February 10, 20142014-02-10
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
