220V in a 110V power strip

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:23:29 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:15:30 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:03:15 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 04:03:59 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:33:21 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:07:31 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:17:41 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:evlst79olpgaf9v6vdp1dubjapgbejugid@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 21:23:39 +0100, "Ian Field"
gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:


"Jack B. Pollack" <N@NE.nothing> wrote in message
news:AKSdnV4NUYdUVEDSnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
Traveling to Malaysia next week. The AC power is 220V 50HZ..

Apparently the plugs are the large 3 prong plugs (type "G").



Trying to avoid buying a bunch of the type G plug adapters.

Is there any reason I cant buy a cheapo $10 power strip and one


Not too sure about socket strips etc, but in the UK the 250VAC house
wiring
is all insulation tested at 500V.

As someone else mentioned - make sure the socket strip isn't surge
protected
with MOC/SIDAC devices.

---
MOC?

--
JF


You know perfectly well that's a typo.

---
Then you admit to your fallibility?
---

Is that your best standard of criticism these days?

---
No, but why should I use a Howitzer when a flyswatter will do?

What, you got a stiffie, again?

---
Interesting that you should take a reference to overkill and see an
erect penis there, but then you and your boy-toy, Ian, seem to see
penises everywhere.

Right. A flyswatter is a bit of overkill.

---
Oh, my!

That sounds like you're trying to be frightfully clever and serves to
illustrate that every man's reach should exceed his grasp.

That was precisely my point, moron. You can't grasp it.

---
As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.
---

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.

Consequently, whenever you're brought up short you have to retaliate
and your favorite attack is to impugn the intelligence of your
challenger.

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

You're a liar.

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.

You're always wrong, but we knew that.

Consequently, whenever you're brought up short you have to retaliate
and your favorite attack is to impugn the intelligence of your
challenger.

No, when the one is an stupid asshole, I say so. ...and you're right at the
top (bottom) of that heap.

 

[Ian Field]

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
newsrl5u75bj2lad7hqh8oidjgvd7hkmbj0pg@4ax.com...

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.
---

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.

Something its increasingly obvious about which you just don't care.

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.
---

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

You're a liar.

---
Easy to claim, but hard to prove.

Why don't you have a go at it instead of just spewing vitriol.?
---

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.

You're always wrong, but we knew that.

---
That's somewhat akin to my refutation of Larkin's claims that latching
relays have infinite gain and, in the end, proved him to be a cheater.

My being right then, just once, belies your claim and makes you and
your "we" wrong.
---

Consequently, whenever you're brought up short you have to retaliate
and your favorite attack is to impugn the intelligence of your
challenger.


No, when the one is an stupid asshole, I say so. ...and you're right at the top >(bottom) of that heap.

---
Neglecting the grammar error, you speak as if your opinion carries the
authority of fact, which it certainly does not, and that your opinion
alone should be the criterion by which one is judged.

Sounds to me like you're a little closer to pointy hats and swastikas
than you let on...

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:31:40 +0100, "Ian Field"
<gangprobing.alien@ntlworld.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
newsrl5u75bj2lad7hqh8oidjgvd7hkmbj0pg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.
---

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.


Something its increasingly obvious about which you just don't care.

---
As far as concessions go, prove me wrong and I'll gladly own up to
being indebted for having the weight of error taken off my shoulders.

As for my "image", I don't try to hide what I am or am not, and people
are free to make their own judgments, so sullying my image isn't
something I'm concerned about.

Plus, I've been around here for a long time and I only draw flak from
a few of you, so I'm mostly surrounded by friendlies.

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.

Perhaps because I don't have to look in the mirror to see one. You're in my
face. (ick)

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

You're a liar.

---
Easy to claim, but hard to prove.

Easy. You do it for me.

Why don't you have a go at it instead of just spewing vitriol.?

You really should take your own advice some day.

---

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.

You're always wrong, but we knew that.

---
That's somewhat akin to my refutation of Larkin's claims that latching
relays have infinite gain and, in the end, proved him to be a cheater.

Again, you lie.

My being right then, just once, belies your claim and makes you and
your "we" wrong.

You were and are wrong. ...and a pedantic fool, but everyone knows that, too.

---

Consequently, whenever you're brought up short you have to retaliate
and your favorite attack is to impugn the intelligence of your
challenger.


No, when the one is an stupid asshole, I say so. ...and you're right at the top >(bottom) of that heap.

---
Neglecting the grammar error, you speak as if your opinion carries the
authority of fact, which it certainly does not, and that your opinion
alone should be the criterion by which one is judged.

I did judge you. You're a stupid asshole. Proof.

Sounds to me like you're a little closer to pointy hats and swastikas
than you let on...

Again the racist remarks. When you're forced to hold your tongue on scat and
gay topics, the racist in you comes out. Amazing.

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:35:33 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.

Perhaps because I don't have to look in the mirror to see one. You're in my
face. (ick)

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

The face part, that is.
---

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

You're a liar.

---
Easy to claim, but hard to prove.

Easy. You do it for me.

Why don't you have a go at it instead of just spewing vitriol.?

You really should take your own advice some day.

---

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.

You're always wrong, but we knew that.

---
That's somewhat akin to my refutation of Larkin's claims that latching
relays have infinite gain and, in the end, proved him to be a cheater.

Again, you lie.

---
Opinion isn't proof.
---

My being right then, just once, belies your claim and makes you and
your "we" wrong.

You were and are wrong. ...and a pedantic fool, but everyone knows that, too.

---
You seem to have a fundamental flaw in your reasoning apparatus in
that your claim: "You're always wrong, but we knew that." is clearly
false if I'm right just once.

Like right now, for instance.
---

Consequently, whenever you're brought up short you have to retaliate
and your favorite attack is to impugn the intelligence of your
challenger.


No, when the one is an stupid asshole, I say so. ...and you're right at the top >(bottom) of that heap.

---
Neglecting the grammar error, you speak as if your opinion carries the
authority of fact, which it certainly does not, and that your opinion
alone should be the criterion by which one is judged.

I did judge you. You're a stupid asshole. Proof.

---
Logic dictates that
the proof be in the pudding.
Yours is all hot air.
---

Sounds to me like you're a little closer to pointy hats and swastikas
than you let on...

Again the racist remarks.

---
I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.
---

When you're forced to hold your tongue on scat and
gay topics, the racist in you comes out. Amazing.

---
Forced???

The power you think you wield is formidable, but in reality is
miniscule.

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:35:33 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.

Perhaps because I don't have to look in the mirror to see one. You're in my
face. (ick)

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

The face part, that is.

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

You're a liar.

---
Easy to claim, but hard to prove.

Easy. You do it for me.

Why don't you have a go at it instead of just spewing vitriol.?

You really should take your own advice some day.

---

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.

You're always wrong, but we knew that.

---
That's somewhat akin to my refutation of Larkin's claims that latching
relays have infinite gain and, in the end, proved him to be a cheater.

Again, you lie.

---
Opinion isn't proof.
---

Doesn't require it, moron.

My being right then, just once, belies your claim and makes you and
your "we" wrong.

You were and are wrong. ...and a pedantic fool, but everyone knows that, too.

---
You seem to have a fundamental flaw in your reasoning apparatus in
that your claim: "You're always wrong, but we knew that." is clearly
false if I'm right just once.

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you are.

Like right now, for instance.

Wrong, again.

---

Consequently, whenever you're brought up short you have to retaliate
and your favorite attack is to impugn the intelligence of your
challenger.


No, when the one is an stupid asshole, I say so. ...and you're right at the top >(bottom) of that heap.

---
Neglecting the grammar error, you speak as if your opinion carries the
authority of fact, which it certainly does not, and that your opinion
alone should be the criterion by which one is judged.

I did judge you. You're a stupid asshole. Proof.

---
Logic dictates that
the proof be in the pudding.
Yours is all hot air.

---

Sounds to me like you're a little closer to pointy hats and swastikas
than you let on...

Again the racist remarks.

---
I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

All you see is racist, ergo...

---

When you're forced to hold your tongue on scat and
gay topics, the racist in you comes out. Amazing.

---
Forced???

You said it. <shrug>

The power you think you wield is formidable, but in reality is
miniscule.

You speak of reality? <LOL>

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:35:33 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.

Perhaps because I don't have to look in the mirror to see one. You're in my
face. (ick)

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

---
You finally figured it out, huh?
---

The face part, that is.

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---
I'm not interested in your asshole, I'm only interested in plumbing
the depths of that cesspool you call your mind.

Wanna play?

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:34:11 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:35:33 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.

Perhaps because I don't have to look in the mirror to see one. You're in my
face. (ick)

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

---
You finally figured it out, huh?
---

It's undeserved.

The face part, that is.

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---
I'm not interested in your asshole, I'm only interested in plumbing
the depths of that cesspool you call your mind.

You're a liar. All you think about is scat and male body parts.

Wanna play?

You're certainly *not* my type.

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:07:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:34:11 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:35:33 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.

Perhaps because I don't have to look in the mirror to see one. You're in my
face. (ick)

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

---
You finally figured it out, huh?
---

It's undeserved.

---
In your eyes, but then the blind have trouble differentiating between
elephants and ...
---

The face part, that is.

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---
I'm not interested in your asshole, I'm only interested in plumbing
the depths of that cesspool you call your mind.

You're a liar. All you think about is scat and male body parts.

---
Not true.

I'm hetero, and I think you're a little queer and are afraid to open
the closet door, so I'd like to talk about it, just for grins.
---

Wanna play?

You're certainly *not* my type.

---
Your type being those who knuckle under?

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:03:11 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:07:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:34:11 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:35:33 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.

Perhaps because I don't have to look in the mirror to see one. You're in my
face. (ick)

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

---
You finally figured it out, huh?
---

It's undeserved.

---
In your eyes, but then the blind have trouble differentiating between
elephants and ...

You *sure* do! I know you wanted to say "assholes", but that would reflect
back on you. Twice. You really are a moron.

---

The face part, that is.

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---
I'm not interested in your asshole, I'm only interested in plumbing
the depths of that cesspool you call your mind.

You're a liar. All you think about is scat and male body parts.

---
Not true.

Absolutely true.

I'm hetero, and I think you're a little queer and are afraid to open
the closet door, so I'd like to talk about it, just for grins.

No, you *need* to demonstrate your (absent) masculinity. Difflection.

---

Wanna play?

You're certainly *not* my type.

---
Your type being those who knuckle under?

To a twit like you? No, but that doesn't change the facts that you're clearly
avoiding.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:59:46 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:03:11 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:07:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:34:11 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

---
You finally figured it out, huh?
---

It's undeserved.

---
In your eyes, but then the blind have trouble differentiating between
elephants and ...

You *sure* do! I know you wanted to say "assholes", but that would reflect
back on you. Twice. You really are a moron.

---
That makes no sense, but then you _are_ a perverse lout who can't
reason, but pretends to clairvoyance.

What I had in mind is at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

---

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---
I'm not interested in your asshole, I'm only interested in plumbing
the depths of that cesspool you call your mind.

You're a liar. All you think about is scat and male body parts.

---
Not true.

Absolutely true.

---
Oh, my, what a scathing retort!
---

I'm hetero, and I think you're a little queer and are afraid to open
the closet door, so I'd like to talk about it, just for grins.

No, you *need* to demonstrate your (absent) masculinity. Difflection.

---
Actually, I think it's more like you're ashamed of your feminine side
so you overcompensate with a charade of overly masculine behavior and
braggadocio.

And, speaking of that imaginary mirror you're so fond of referring to,
when you look into it do you see your "rifflection"?
---

---

Wanna play?

You're certainly *not* my type.

---
Your type being those who knuckle under?

To a twit like you?

---
You really do have trouble with reading comprehension, eh?
It would have been clear to most that "your type" refers to those who
knuckle under to _you_, silly goose!
---

No, but that doesn't change the facts that you're clearly
avoiding.

---
The proof is in the pudding.

--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 04:20:09 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:59:46 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:03:11 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:07:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:34:11 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

---
You finally figured it out, huh?
---

It's undeserved.

---
In your eyes, but then the blind have trouble differentiating between
elephants and ...

You *sure* do! I know you wanted to say "assholes", but that would reflect
back on you. Twice. You really are a moron.

---
That makes no sense, but then you _are_ a perverse lout

Says the scat fetishist and queer.

who can't reason,

AlwaysWrong.

but pretends to clairvoyance.

You're the one who plays Lucy, here, hypocrite.

What I had in mind is at:

*nothing*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

---

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---
I'm not interested in your asshole, I'm only interested in plumbing
the depths of that cesspool you call your mind.

You're a liar. All you think about is scat and male body parts.

---
Not true.

Absolutely true.

---
Oh, my, what a scathing retort!

Facts are just that.

---

I'm hetero, and I think you're a little queer and are afraid to open
the closet door, so I'd like to talk about it, just for grins.

No, you *need* to demonstrate your (absent) masculinity. Difflection.

---
Actually, I think it's more like you're ashamed of your feminine side
so you overcompensate with a charade of overly masculine behavior and
braggadocio.

Sure, Lucy.

And, speaking of that imaginary mirror you're so fond of referring to,
when you look into it do you see your "rifflection"?

Anything you say, Lucy.

---

---

Wanna play?

You're certainly *not* my type.

---
Your type being those who knuckle under?

To a twit like you?

---
You really do have trouble with reading comprehension, eh?
It would have been clear to most that "your type" refers to those who
knuckle under to _you_, silly goose!

Unlike you, I have no expectations of anyone "knuckling under" on the Usenet.
You are a sick "man".

---

No, but that doesn't change the facts that you're clearly
avoiding.

---
The proof is in the pudding.

It sure is, hypocrite.

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:30:57 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 04:20:09 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:59:46 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:03:11 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 20:07:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 17:34:11 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

---
You finally figured it out, huh?
---

It's undeserved.

---
In your eyes, but then the blind have trouble differentiating between
elephants and ...

You *sure* do! I know you wanted to say "assholes", but that would reflect
back on you. Twice. You really are a moron.

---
That makes no sense, but then you _are_ a perverse lout

Says the scat fetishist and queer.

who can't reason,

AlwaysWrong.

but pretends to clairvoyance.

You're the one who plays Lucy, here, hypocrite.

What I had in mind is at:

*nothing*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

---

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---
I'm not interested in your asshole, I'm only interested in plumbing
the depths of that cesspool you call your mind.

You're a liar. All you think about is scat and male body parts.

---
Not true.

Absolutely true.

---
Oh, my, what a scathing retort!

Facts are just that.

---
Facts are facts, but what you try to pass off as factual clearly
isn't.
---

I'm hetero, and I think you're a little queer and are afraid to open
the closet door, so I'd like to talk about it, just for grins.

No, you *need* to demonstrate your (absent) masculinity. Difflection.

---
Actually, I think it's more like you're ashamed of your feminine side
so you overcompensate with a charade of overly masculine behavior and
braggadocio.

Sure, Lucy.

---
That's hardly factual refutation, just more dodging.
---

And, speaking of that imaginary mirror you're so fond of referring to,
when you look into it do you see your "rifflection"?

Anything you say, Lucy.

---
That's hardly factual refutation, just more dodging.
---

---

Wanna play?

You're certainly *not* my type.

---
Your type being those who knuckle under?

To a twit like you?

---
You really do have trouble with reading comprehension, eh?
It would have been clear to most that "your type" refers to those who
knuckle under to _you_, silly goose!

Unlike you, I have no expectations of anyone "knuckling under" on the Usenet.
You are a sick "man".

---
Utter nonsense, since whenever you're confronted with an argument
which affirms error on your part, you refuse to take responsibility
for the error and, instead, try to force the issue to go your way with
lies, name-calling, and dodging.
---

No, but that doesn't change the facts that you're clearly
avoiding.

---
The proof is in the pudding.

It sure is, hypocrite.

---
Post the recipe, then.

--
JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:35:33 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.

Perhaps because I don't have to look in the mirror to see one. You're in my
face. (ick)

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

The face part, that is.

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

You're a liar.

---
Easy to claim, but hard to prove.

Easy. You do it for me.

Why don't you have a go at it instead of just spewing vitriol.?

You really should take your own advice some day.

---

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.

You're always wrong, but we knew that.

---
That's somewhat akin to my refutation of Larkin's claims that latching
relays have infinite gain and, in the end, proved him to be a cheater.

Again, you lie.

---
Opinion isn't proof.
---

Doesn't require it, moron.


My being right then, just once, belies your claim and makes you and
your "we" wrong.

You were and are wrong. ...and a pedantic fool, but everyone knows that, too.

---
You seem to have a fundamental flaw in your reasoning apparatus in
that your claim: "You're always wrong, but we knew that." is clearly
false if I'm right just once.

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you are.

Like right now, for instance.

Wrong, again.

---

Consequently, whenever you're brought up short you have to retaliate
and your favorite attack is to impugn the intelligence of your
challenger.


No, when the one is an stupid asshole, I say so. ...and you're right at the top >(bottom) of that heap.

---
Neglecting the grammar error, you speak as if your opinion carries the
authority of fact, which it certainly does not, and that your opinion
alone should be the criterion by which one is judged.

I did judge you. You're a stupid asshole. Proof.

---
Logic dictates that
the proof be in the pudding.
Yours is all hot air.


---

Sounds to me like you're a little closer to pointy hats and swastikas
than you let on...

Again the racist remarks.

---
I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

All you see is racist, ergo...
---

You're racist.

---

When you're forced to hold your tongue on scat and
gay topics, the racist in you comes out. Amazing.

---
Forced???

You said it. <shrug

The power you think you wield is formidable, but in reality is
miniscule.

You speak of reality? <LOL

---
I do, indeed, while you speak of how it would be if you were in
charge.






--
JF

 

[krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:52:09 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:35:33 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.

Perhaps because I don't have to look in the mirror to see one. You're in my
face. (ick)

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

The face part, that is.

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

You're a liar.

---
Easy to claim, but hard to prove.

Easy. You do it for me.

Why don't you have a go at it instead of just spewing vitriol.?

You really should take your own advice some day.

---

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.

You're always wrong, but we knew that.

---
That's somewhat akin to my refutation of Larkin's claims that latching
relays have infinite gain and, in the end, proved him to be a cheater.

Again, you lie.

---
Opinion isn't proof.
---

Doesn't require it, moron.


My being right then, just once, belies your claim and makes you and
your "we" wrong.

You were and are wrong. ...and a pedantic fool, but everyone knows that, too.

---
You seem to have a fundamental flaw in your reasoning apparatus in
that your claim: "You're always wrong, but we knew that." is clearly
false if I'm right just once.

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you are.

Like right now, for instance.

Wrong, again.

---

Consequently, whenever you're brought up short you have to retaliate
and your favorite attack is to impugn the intelligence of your
challenger.


No, when the one is an stupid asshole, I say so. ...and you're right at the top >(bottom) of that heap.

---
Neglecting the grammar error, you speak as if your opinion carries the
authority of fact, which it certainly does not, and that your opinion
alone should be the criterion by which one is judged.

I did judge you. You're a stupid asshole. Proof.

---
Logic dictates that
the proof be in the pudding.
Yours is all hot air.


---

Sounds to me like you're a little closer to pointy hats and swastikas
than you let on...

Again the racist remarks.

---
I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

All you see is racist, ergo...
---
You're racist.

Yes, you are. That's the whole point.

---

When you're forced to hold your tongue on scat and
gay topics, the racist in you comes out. Amazing.

---
Forced???

You said it. <shrug

The power you think you wield is formidable, but in reality is
miniscule.

You speak of reality? <LOL

---
I do, indeed, while you speak of how it would be if you were in
charge.

You may speak of it, but you sure don't live it. Alzheimer's has already set
in, you've already replied to the post. <What a maroon!>

 

[Ian Field]

<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:qcgju7pi9o6a1sjg6fj5p9l2lo446ibc4c@4ax.com...

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:52:09 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:35:33 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 08:34:12 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012 03:31:17 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:11:18 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:39 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:19:02 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:15:32 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:


As you do with Larkin, you latch on to what your betters have to
say
and pretend their words were yours.

Shame on you.

You're an idiot. No one home...

---
Who's slapping you around, then?

Certainly not some pipsqueak scat fetishist.

---
Agreed.

Then why are you preening like you are?

---
I wasn't aware that I was, but then I'll concede the point to you
since I'm sure you know much more about preening scat fetishists than
I do.

Perhaps because I don't have to look in the mirror to see one. You're
in my
face. (ick)

---
Wishful thinking, I'd say.

You really do think a lot of yourself.

The face part, that is.

You only wish you could get in my asshole, perv.

---

When you're challenged and you can't defend your position, instead
of
just saying "touche" and conceding the point, you always try to
extricate yourself from the jam you've gotten yourself into with
invective.

That I make the occasional tupo? Is that supposed to be a
revelation to
anyone? Does anyone care, other than one asshole pedant, who's
constantly
trying to show how smart he is? You really are a moron.

---
None of the above.

You're a liar.

---
Easy to claim, but hard to prove.

Easy. You do it for me.

Why don't you have a go at it instead of just spewing vitriol.?

You really should take your own advice some day.

---

The problem, as I see it, is that you loathe to make concessions
since
you think that would sully the image you think others have of you.

You're always wrong, but we knew that.

---
That's somewhat akin to my refutation of Larkin's claims that latching
relays have infinite gain and, in the end, proved him to be a cheater.

Again, you lie.

---
Opinion isn't proof.
---

Doesn't require it, moron.


My being right then, just once, belies your claim and makes you and
your "we" wrong.

You were and are wrong. ...and a pedantic fool, but everyone knows
that, too.

---
You seem to have a fundamental flaw in your reasoning apparatus in
that your claim: "You're always wrong, but we knew that." is clearly
false if I'm right just once.

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you are.

Like right now, for instance.

Wrong, again.

---

Consequently, whenever you're brought up short you have to retaliate
and your favorite attack is to impugn the intelligence of your
challenger.


No, when the one is an stupid asshole, I say so. ...and you're right
at the top >(bottom) of that heap.

---
Neglecting the grammar error, you speak as if your opinion carries the
authority of fact, which it certainly does not, and that your opinion
alone should be the criterion by which one is judged.

I did judge you. You're a stupid asshole. Proof.

---
Logic dictates that
the proof be in the pudding.
Yours is all hot air.


---

Sounds to me like you're a little closer to pointy hats and swastikas
than you let on...

Again the racist remarks.

---
I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

All you see is racist, ergo...
---
You're racist.

Yes, you are. That's the whole point.


---

When you're forced to hold your tongue on scat and
gay topics, the racist in you comes out. Amazing.

---
Forced???

You said it. <shrug

The power you think you wield is formidable, but in reality is
miniscule.

You speak of reality? <LOL

---
I do, indeed, while you speak of how it would be if you were in
charge.

You may speak of it, but you sure don't live it. Alzheimer's has already
set
in, you've already replied to the post. <What a maroon!

You're keeping JF from his regular job; standing on a street corner shouting
at the traffic.

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:08:16 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:52:09 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:25:30 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 07:15:13 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 22:35:33 -0400, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:57:35 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

Sounds to me like you're a little closer to pointy hats and swastikas
than you let on...

Again the racist remarks.

---
I calls 'em the way I sees 'em.

All you see is racist, ergo...
---
You're racist.

Yes, you are. That's the whole point.

---
I fail to see how my: "Sounds to me like you're a little closer to
pointy hats and swastikas than you let on..." makes _me_ a racist.
---

When you're forced to hold your tongue on scat and
gay topics, the racist in you comes out. Amazing.

---
Forced???

You said it. <shrug

---
No, you did, and I questioned it.

Did you miss the ampersands?
---

The power you think you wield is formidable, but in reality is
miniscule.

You speak of reality? <LOL

---
I do, indeed, while you speak of how it would be if you were in
charge.

You may speak of it, but you sure don't live it.

---
That, from someone who lives in a fantasy world where truth must play
second fiddle to saving face by the use of lies and subterfuge, is
ingenuous.


Alzheimer's has already set in, you've already replied to the post.
<What a maroon!>

---
Geez, It seems like I'm not the only one at the dance...

--
JF