Adding missing SATA connectors to motherboard

[kony]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

Look, you dopey, retarded fuckhead... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

 

[kony]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:47:23 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

It's just amazing.

I'd even bet you don't know what *that* word means.

Since this topic has no further productive value there is no
reason to waste more time on it.

 

On Jan 13, 8:41 pm, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLe...@InfiniteSeries.Org>
wrote:

  Look, you dopey, retarded fuckhead...  There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

More slaty language : (-1) point

  I doubt that you even know what a VME backplane is, much less have any
grasp of circuit board manufacturing technology.  You obviously have no
clue as to how many layers modern boards have, much less how many were
available to be had in 1975.  Your grasp of PC boards is limited to that
which you ever saw.  That is proven by the inane remark about what YOU
think was available at the time.



Granted, there's not one second I buy this,

  We know...  but that is because you're an absolute fucking retard.

calling someone f*&k-head twice in the same post : (-1) point

but let's see
what you come up with.

  You really are one brainless little bitch.- Hide quoted text -

Third insult using curse words: (-1) point

- Show quoted text -

You get a (-3) point trolling score for this post.

You really suck at this trolling thingy man!

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:04:42 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

While that is interesting, it isn't a 100 layer mainboard
PCB? It seems we are not talking about the same thing,
although a search of the document did not find "110"
anywhere, what page is that on?

Come back perhaps in your next life. You are hard wired retarded in
this one.

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:07:35 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded fuckhead... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.


You're an idiot. Is that clear enough for you, you clouded fuck?

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:11:15 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:47:23 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:


It's just amazing.

I'd even bet you don't know what *that* word means.

Since this topic has no further productive value there is no
reason to waste more time on it.

Or in other words, your claim about only two layers before 1985 was
ludicrous, so you are exiting stage left, since you are about as wrong as
it gets.

 

[krw]

In article <k2iqm4ljrbp0kt450u9fbu7ujtvb5bf8nf@4ax.com>,
spam@spam.com says...>

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded fuckhead... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

You *DID* say that 2-layers was all there was before 1980, which
shows your absolute ignorance on the subject. 2-layer boards may
have been the norm for consumer electronics (hell, some VCRs are
only one now) but there is obviously a big world out there you have
no clue about. ...and apparently want to keep it that way.

 

[kony]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:40:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
<OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:04:42 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:


While that is interesting, it isn't a 100 layer mainboard
PCB? It seems we are not talking about the same thing,
although a search of the document did not find "110"
anywhere, what page is that on?


Come back perhaps in your next life. You are hard wired retarded in
this one.

Just out of curiosity, after oh maybe your 3000th troll, did
you think anyone would take your comments seriously? That's
not really a question.

 

[kony]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:36:15 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz>
wrote:

In article <k2iqm4ljrbp0kt450u9fbu7ujtvb5bf8nf@4ax.com>,
spam@spam.com says...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded fuckhead... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

You *DID* say that 2-layers was all there was before 1980, which
shows your absolute ignorance on the subject.

We had been talking about mainboards. Obviously even the
CPUs themselves had more than that.

2-layer boards may
have been the norm for consumer electronics (hell, some VCRs are
only one now) but there is obviously a big world out there you have
no clue about. ...and apparently want to keep it that way.

We weren't talking about a big world, we already had a
context for the topic, or do we really have to backtrack and
restate every little thing in a topic without it being in
context? If so, where exactly does that end?

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:41:30 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:40:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:04:42 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:


While that is interesting, it isn't a 100 layer mainboard
PCB? It seems we are not talking about the same thing,
although a search of the document did not find "110"
anywhere, what page is that on?


Come back perhaps in your next life. You are hard wired retarded in
this one.


Just out of curiosity, after oh maybe your 3000th troll, did
you think anyone would take your comments seriously? That's
not really a question.

100 layers, idiot. Since the late seventies. You said "two" since
'85. I was making home-hobby PCBs at home that were two layers in '85.
So you're a total loon.

What really IS a question is how you think that anyone is taking you
seriously after that... at all. Hahahaha!

 

[Archimedes' Lever]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:43:15 -0500, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

We had been talking about mainboards. Obviously even the
CPUs themselves had more than that.

Guess-as-you-go doesn't work here.

 

[krw]

In article <k3ctm45fo8a3j52uinfpqnied457v9gdk3@4ax.com>,
spam@spam.com says...>

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 07:36:15 -0600, krw <krw@att.zzzzzzzzz
wrote:

In article <k2iqm4ljrbp0kt450u9fbu7ujtvb5bf8nf@4ax.com>,
spam@spam.com says...
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 17:41:49 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
OneBigLever@InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote:


Look, you dopey, retarded fuckhead... There are IC chips in the
military that you have no clue about, and there are assemblies as well.

An IC chip is not a mainboard. Did I write that nothing man
has ever built had 100 or more layers? No. It seems both
of us should have been more clear on what we meant.

You *DID* say that 2-layers was all there was before 1980, which
shows your absolute ignorance on the subject.

We had been talking about mainboards. Obviously even the
CPUs themselves had more than that.

We were talking about PCBs. Define "CPU" (we clearly weren't
talking about chips).

2-layer boards may
have been the norm for consumer electronics (hell, some VCRs are
only one now) but there is obviously a big world out there you have
no clue about. ...and apparently want to keep it that way.


We weren't talking about a big world, we already had a
context for the topic, or do we really have to backtrack and
restate every little thing in a topic without it being in
context? If so, where exactly does that end?

When you admit that you leaped *way* beyond your knowledge.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:41:30 -0500, kony wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:40:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
[sos]
Just out of curiosity, after oh maybe your 3000th troll, did you think
anyone would take your comments seriously? That's not really a question.

And yet, after 3,001 trolls, you continue to feed it, bypassing my troll
filter?

Go away.

 

[kony]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:10:56 GMT, Rich Grise
<rich@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:41:30 -0500, kony wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:40:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
[sos]
Just out of curiosity, after oh maybe your 3000th troll, did you think
anyone would take your comments seriously? That's not really a question.

And yet, after 3,001 trolls, you continue to feed it, bypassing my troll
filter?

Go away.

If it bothers you that much, I *permit* you to stop
reading... though this topic is like beating a dead horse so
you'll get your wish either way.

 

[Capt. Cave Man]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:10:56 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:41:30 -0500, kony wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:40:13 -0800, Archimedes' Lever
[sos]
Just out of curiosity, after oh maybe your 3000th troll, did you think
anyone would take your comments seriously? That's not really a question.

And yet, after 3,001 trolls, you continue to feed it, bypassing my troll
filter?

Go away.


You're an idiot, Grise. A worthless dope, at best.