On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 18:14:16 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:>On Tuesday, 11 February 2014 03:30:21 UTC+11, John Fields wrote: >> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:36:05 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote: >> >On Monday, 10 February 2014 11:34:02 UTC+11, John Fields wrote: >> >> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:34:13 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> >> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Monday, 10 February 2014 06:02:00 UTC+11, John Fields wrote: >> >> >> On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:29:29 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >> >> >> <bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >On Sunday, 9 February 2014 18:47:16 UTC+11, John Fields wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 09 Feb 2014 15:30:49 +1100, Bill Sloman >> >> >> >> <cutlersloman@tpg.com.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 9/02/2014 10:46 AM, John Fields wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 22:20:44 -0000, "Ian Field" >> >> >> >> >> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> "John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >>> news:juadf9p38kfvm23hg8qvpreulol46u0r44@4ax.com... >> >> >> >> >>>> On Sat, 8 Feb 2014 21:40:53 -0000, "Ian Field" >> >> >> >> >>>> <gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote: >> > >> ><snip> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Watching a cockroach scamper across the floor is hardly stalking... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Except that in this context, John Fields is the cockroach. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> One would expect you'd feel that way, your parsing skills being >> >> >> >> what they are. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >On the contrary, parsing doesn't come into it. You intrude into a moderately technical discussion of waveguides with a totally irrelevant flame, and then get shirty when Ian Fields - not unreasonably - takes offense. >> >> >> >> >> >> My error then; it wasn't a question of parsing, it was a lack of >> >> >> reading comprehension which led you to miss the rancor in Field's: >> >> >> "I pretty much suggested as much without resorting to telling my >> >> >> life story". >> >> >> >> >> >> Similar in tone to much of your own pretentious flap, the >> >> >> unconscious oversight is hardly surprising. >> >> >> >> >> >> >From my point of view, that makes you the obnoxious insect, scuttling in to scavange a spot of personal gratification without making any kind of useful contribution in the process. >> >> >> >> >> >> Tit for tat often keeps a bully at bay, which is gratifying in its >> >> >> own right. >> >> > >> >> >That wasn't tit for tat, but an unreasonably offensive response to a minor provocation. >> >> >> >> You retaliate in your way and I'll retaliate in mine, thank you very >> >> much. >> > >> >You didn't need to "retaliate", and the response was out of all proportion to the offense (such as it was). >> > >> >> >> >> >>> I thought you'd died. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That pretty much seems to go hand-in-hand with the rest of >> >> >> >> >> your "thinking". >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >Wishful thinking is popular. I don't think Ian Fields is any >> >> >> >> >more guilty of it than the rest of us. You - for instance - >> >> >> >> >expect to be taken seriously. I'm not that optimistic. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> With good reason. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >If only I could earn a better audience ... >> >> >> >> >> >> Perhaps, then - with the reputation you've already earned around >> >> >> here in mind - a different venue might more nearly fit your needs? >> >> > >> >> >I'm perfectly happy with the more discriminating parts of this audience. Admittedly, the less discrimating part does discriminate, but on the basis of nationality and political affiliation, rather than on rational content (which they can't actually process). >> >> >> >> All gobbledygook. >> > >> >As I said - "which they can't actually process". >> >> >You've just taken the trouble to identify yourself as a member of the less discriminating part of s.e.d. >> > >> >> You've had rational content presented as evidence of your foibles on >> >> more than one occasion, and rather than confront the presenter with >> >> rational discourse and take the thumping you deserve when you've >> >> been unhorsed, you scurry away muttering epithets designed to kill >> >> the messenger. >> > >> >You idea of "rational content" was in fact your misapprehension dressed up in pretentious language. I spent quite a while trying to educate you about what complex sentences actually meant, without achieving anything useful. Your memory displays you in a different - if totally implausible - role. >> >> He said she said... > >Not exactly. I can read and write at a respectable level, and have a Ph.D. and a handful of published papers to prove it.--- That's nothing but a red herring, you cheat, - which hardly refutes: "He said she said..." - so you must not have known what I meant and just wanted to slime by. --->You know all there is to know about the 555 (except that it is obsolete)--- You drone on and on about that, a la Joseph Goebbels, as if repetition will turn white into black. I just looked at Digi-Key and they have access to a million units or so, and TI has both the bipolar NE555 and the CMOS TLC555 listed as "active" which means they're in full production, so perhaps your definition of 'obsolete' differs from theirs. Or else all those 'legacy' designs/applications you keep referring to, and their repairs, are eating up all that silicon? --->and regularly demonstrate an incapacity to pares complex sentences--- Well, at least I can pares potatoes... --->- they look like gobbledygook to you.--- And so they are, no matter how much sense they make to _your_ deranged mind. --->Your opinion doesn't carry much weight.--- And yet you can't even budge it with all your devastating wit? --->I'd fight to the death for your right to express it, but I'll also take pleasure in ridiculing it.--- Evelyn Beatrice Hall you ain't, and you take pleasure in ridiculing everything you don't understand in order to keep from having to step out of that six foot hole you've dug for yourself.
Radar generating transistor circuit?
Started by ●February 7, 2014
Reply by ●February 11, 20142014-02-11
Reply by ●February 11, 20142014-02-11
On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 08:11:48 -0600, John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:>--- >Evelyn Beatrice Hall you ain't, and you take pleasure in ridiculing >everything you don't understand in order to keep from having to step >out of that six foot hole you've dug for yourself.--- Should read: ..."understand or you disagree with, in order"...
