California’s EV charging network could use a jolt, a trip down I-5 shows...

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 1:55:58 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 22:50:38 -0700, Don Y
blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 9/26/2022 9:50 PM, boB wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 18:20:21 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs
bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

What a mess! Wonder what is causing the failures? Sounds like it may be more with connection issues than the hardware. They\'ve got to do way better than this if they expect to even come close to accommodating a total EV conversion- there are going to be so many cars trying to get on the chargers.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2022-09-22/boiling-point-californias-ev-charging-network-could-use-a-jolt-a-trip-down-i-5-shows-boiling-point


In the southern USA where the sun works, PV will be able to charge the
cars. If they need to be charged at night, then batteries will
eventually be able to help that energy time shift.

Make the electricity where you use it if possible.

Not that good in the north of course.

You can move electricity a lot easier than liquid fuels...

One small product pipeline moves multiples of the power of a giant HV
transmission line. NG enters my house through a tiny plastic tube,
much smaller than the electric lines. Much more reliable and cheaper
too.

I can gas up my car from 0 to 100% in 5 minutes. An equivalent
electric charge at home would take about a week... if California
allowed charging 24/7.

Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That\'s why tanks don\'t have rail guns.

All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have electricity. That\'s very odd.

How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can find potential solutions?
Your prime motivation is to insult, which makes you not very good at
brainstorming.

No thanks.

You can\'t say I do anything different from you. Well, one thing is different. I don\'t get insulted because people show me facts.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That\'s why tanks don\'t have rail guns.

All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have electricity. That\'s very odd.

How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can find potential solutions?
I don\'t usually react to Ricky, as I have him killfiled.

Anyway, one of the reasons we don\'t make our own electricity with
chemical fuels are that small installations can\'t benefit from the
economy of scale. Large installations with lots of pooled resources
can do much better. Another reason is that chemical fuels are
heavily taxed for small consumers, which quells any advantage we
might gain thereby.

Indeed. We do, however, power our transportation with very tiny engines that are very inefficient and are more expensive to operate than alternatives.

Chemical fuels are not taxed at all for any use other than transportation. That is allegedly to pay for roads, but there is no direct connection between fuel taxes and money spent on roads.

So if there were any value to generating electricity at the small end of the wire, we would be doing it. Oh, wait, we do, using solar panels mostly. We even share that with the rest of the grid.

--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 10:55:58 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That\'s why tanks don\'t have rail guns.

All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have electricity. That\'s very odd.

How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can find potential solutions?

Your prime motivation is to insult, which makes you not very good at
brainstorming.

How ironic; for a frivolous reason, you reject input preemptively? That\'s NOT
the brainstorming way, John Larkin.

Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty. People who need to be
always right seldom are.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2022-09-27 21:19, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John
Larkin wrote:

Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That\'s why tanks don\'t have
rail guns.

All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have
electricity. That\'s very odd.

How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can
find potential solutions?
I don\'t usually react to Ricky, as I have him killfiled.

Anyway, one of the reasons we don\'t make our own electricity with
chemical fuels are that small installations can\'t benefit from the
economy of scale. Large installations with lots of pooled
resources can do much better. Another reason is that chemical fuels
are heavily taxed for small consumers, which quells any advantage
we might gain thereby.

Indeed. We do, however, power our transportation with very tiny
engines that are very inefficient and are more expensive to operate
than alternatives.

We had no viable alternative until recently, and chemical fuel _was_
cheap. Granted, BEVs are getting better.

Chemical fuels are not taxed at all for any use other than
transportation. That is allegedly to pay for roads, but there is no
direct connection between fuel taxes and money spent on roads.

Depends. In western Europe, automotive fuel is taxed around 70%
of the retail price. That sort-of discourages you from using it
for anything else.

Fuel for other purposes, agriculture, shipping, home heating and
so on is not as heavily taxed. The stuff used to heat homes with
would kill any motor-like contraption in short order. It\'s vile.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:53:18 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2022-09-27 21:19, Ricky wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 3:11:08 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John
Larkin wrote:

Chemicals pack a lot of energy. That\'s why tanks don\'t have
rail guns.

All those advantages of chemical fuel, yet you still have
electricity. That\'s very odd.

How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can
find potential solutions?
I don\'t usually react to Ricky, as I have him killfiled.

Anyway, one of the reasons we don\'t make our own electricity with
chemical fuels are that small installations can\'t benefit from the
economy of scale. Large installations with lots of pooled
resources can do much better. Another reason is that chemical fuels
are heavily taxed for small consumers, which quells any advantage
we might gain thereby.

Indeed. We do, however, power our transportation with very tiny
engines that are very inefficient and are more expensive to operate
than alternatives.
We had no viable alternative until recently, and chemical fuel _was_
cheap. Granted, BEVs are getting better.

Yes, ICE vehicles have always been considered better than horses. But only because we\'ve totally ignored the carbon emissions. This is what we do when we have hard choices. We ignore the hard parts and forge ahead.

Chemical fuels are not taxed at all for any use other than
transportation. That is allegedly to pay for roads, but there is no
direct connection between fuel taxes and money spent on roads.
Depends. In western Europe, automotive fuel is taxed around 70%
of the retail price. That sort-of discourages you from using it
for anything else.

Why would you use automotive fuel *for* anything else? The gasoline is the same no matter where it is used. It\'s just not taxed the same.

Fuel for other purposes, agriculture, shipping, home heating and
so on is not as heavily taxed. The stuff used to heat homes with
would kill any motor-like contraption in short order. It\'s vile.

You don\'t seem to understand the issue. You don\'t need to cheat. The laws allow the use of a fuel for non-road uses without tax.

We could have been using electricity for vehicles for the last two decades. It took someone with vision to see that it was not only practical, but essential. He convinced others to invest and the rest is history. Now, we are well on our way, even if a few need to be dragged along, kicking and screaming.

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 3:55:58 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 22:50:38 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 9/26/2022 9:50 PM, boB wrote:
On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 18:20:21 -0700 (PDT), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

How about we brainstorm some of these problems? See if we can find potential solutions?

Your prime motivation is to insult, which makes you not very good at brainstorming.

Whenever John Larkin posts something which wasn\'t well thought out (as he frequently does) he feels insulted by subsequent corrections, rather than educated.

He wouldn\'t do well in a brain-storming session

> No thanks.

John Larkin prefers to feeling flattered to being well-informed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:50:10 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 11:14:20 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 10:55:58 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:35:13 -0700 (PDT), Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 11:19:47 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

> Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty. People who need to be always right seldom are.

Curious that John Larkin thinks that he is good at brainstorming,then. Of course he also thinks that he\'s good at circuit design, when he seems to be better at evolving better circuits by endless tiny tweaks.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty.

Nonsense; brainstorming is a formal procedure that bypasses
those pesky little impulses. Look it up.

People who need to be
always right seldom are.

Are you trying to mock the processes of acquiring expertise?
Why? Experts think that\'s a doomed-to-fail effort.

 

[Don Y]

On 9/27/2022 6:30 PM, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty.

Nonsense; brainstorming is a formal procedure that bypasses
those pesky little impulses. Look it up.

People should be free to express *rational* ideas in a brainstorming
session. People with fragile egos and inadequate thought processes
shouldn\'t be invited to join. Ditto \"stuffed shirts\" that like all
the i\'s dotted and t\'s crossed -- they\'ll rule ideas out simply
because they\'re only \"half baked\" (and they\'re unable to see beyond
the obvious due to inadequate imaginations)

I recall a guy at an offsite (yes, we took brainstorming seriously
enough that we\'d \"go away\" together) describing how the Space Invaders
game had a *sexual* appeal (!) We were all taken aback by the claim...
until he backed it up.

\"Hmmm... is this trivial little game SO successful because it speaks to
some subconscious urge?\"

Everyone looks at the world from a different perspective. And,
thus, products/projects. So, for truly *revolutionary* ideas
(no one is interested in *evolutionary* ideas) you let people
\"let it all hang out\".

\"Why do we have to do it THAT way? Why not this OTHER way?\"

Accountants need not apply.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 18:30:24 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty.

Nonsense; brainstorming is a formal procedure that bypasses
those pesky little impulses. Look it up.

Formal procedure? We just do it.

People who need to be
always right seldom are.

Are you trying to mock the processes of acquiring expertise?
Why? Experts think that\'s a doomed-to-fail effort.

Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
as not, represses ideas.

A good brainstorm mix is people with different specializations. The
ones not-expert in field X are most likely to have new ideas about X.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 20:24:56 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 9/27/2022 6:30 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty.

Nonsense; brainstorming is a formal procedure that bypasses
those pesky little impulses. Look it up.

People should be free to express *rational* ideas in a brainstorming
session.

Irrational ideas are at least as valuable. Maybe more so.

They break up the static friction of \"in my experience...\"

One way to have radical ideas is to accept that jokes are good
contributions to a session.

People with fragile egos and inadequate thought processes
shouldn\'t be invited to join. Ditto \"stuffed shirts\" that like all
the i\'s dotted and t\'s crossed -- they\'ll rule ideas out simply
because they\'re only \"half baked\" (and they\'re unable to see beyond
the obvious due to inadequate imaginations)

Right. Some people are poisonous. Especially if they are managers or
\"senior\" engineers.

I recall a guy at an offsite (yes, we took brainstorming seriously
enough that we\'d \"go away\" together) describing how the Space Invaders
game had a *sexual* appeal (!) We were all taken aback by the claim...
until he backed it up.

\"Hmmm... is this trivial little game SO successful because it speaks to
some subconscious urge?\"

Everyone looks at the world from a different perspective. And,
thus, products/projects. So, for truly *revolutionary* ideas
(no one is interested in *evolutionary* ideas) you let people
\"let it all hang out\".

We get along better and design better if we accept that individuals
are very different.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:28:36 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 18:30:24 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty.

Nonsense; brainstorming is a formal procedure that bypasses those pesky little impulses. Look it up.

Formal procedure? We just do it.

And get it wrong.

People who need to be always right seldom are.

Are you trying to mock the processes of acquiring expertise?

Why? Experts think that\'s a doomed-to-fail effort.

Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often as not, represses ideas.

Experts aren\'t often wrong, That\'s what it takes to be recognised as an expert.

John Larkin does seem to have a lot of bad ideas, and resents it when he is told how bad they are,

> A good brainstorm mix is people with different specializations. The ones not-expert in field X are most likely to have new ideas about X.

Most of them won\'t be much good, but brainstorming is the process of getting a lot of mostly bad ideas and separating the wheat from the chaff. What\'s actually sought are strange and original ideas, but people can\'t churn them out on demand.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 1:46:09 PM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 20:24:56 -0700, Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
On 9/27/2022 6:30 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Brainstorming is poisoned by emotional frailty.

Nonsense; brainstorming is a formal procedure that bypasses those pesky little impulses. Look it up.

People should be free to express *rational* ideas in a brainstorming session.

Irrational ideas are at least as valuable. Maybe more so.

Not as such. Their utility - such as it is - is in providing a path to strange and original ideas,

> They break up the static friction of \"in my experience...\"

Really?

> One way to have radical ideas is to accept that jokes are good contributions to a session.

Jokes are always good contributions.

> >People with fragile egos and inadequate thought processes shouldn\'t be invited to join. Ditto \"stuffed shirts\" that like all the i\'s dotted and t\'s crossed -- they\'ll rule ideas out simply because they\'re only \"half baked\" (and they\'re unable to see beyond the obvious due to inadequate imaginations).

Brainstorming demands half-baked ideas.

> Right. Some people are poisonous. Especially if they are managers or \"senior\" engineers.

If they have status, their bad attitude can discourage more junior staff from making the kind of contribution desired. Managers and senior engineers aren\'t always status-conscious stuffed shirts.

I recall a guy at an offsite (yes, we took brainstorming seriously enough that we\'d \"go away\" together) describing how the Space Invaders game had a *sexual* appeal (!) We were all taken aback by the claim... until he backed it up.

\"Hmmm... is this trivial little game SO successful because it speaks to
some subconscious urge?\"

Everyone looks at the world from a different perspective. And,thus, products/projects. So, for truly *revolutionary* ideas (no one is interested in *evolutionary* ideas) you let people\"let it all hang out\".

Evolutionary ideas can be just as interesting as revolutionary ideas, and can be a good deal more likely, and easier, to work out.

> We get along better and design better if we accept that individuals are very different.

Up to a point. When the difference is dictatorial ego-mania, acceptance isn\'t a good idea.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 18:30:24 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

People who need to be
always right seldom are.

Are you trying to mock the processes of acquiring expertise?
Why? Experts think that\'s a doomed-to-fail effort.

Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
as not, represses ideas.

Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
Is that what you call \'represses ideas\'?

Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong,
mean... what, exactly? I\'m hearing bafflegab.

A good brainstorm mix is people with different specializations. The
ones not-expert in field X are most likely to have new ideas about X.

Sure, that seems right. The \'field X\' is a kind of limited viewpoint,
like only considering electronic components that are available in
washable surfacemount. Sometimes the limit is good, sometimes not.

Famously, mil-spec component testing regimens were wasteful and tedious,
but didn\'t die until AFTER they got ridiculous, and COTS became the
buzzword. Imagine boxed small-signal diodes with serial numbers...

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:13:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 18:30:24 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 12:50:10 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

People who need to be
always right seldom are.

Are you trying to mock the processes of acquiring expertise?
Why? Experts think that\'s a doomed-to-fail effort.

Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
as not, represses ideas.

Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
Is that what you call \'represses ideas\'?

Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong,
mean... what, exactly? I\'m hearing bafflegab.

You are hearing ideas that you instantly reject. QED.

A good brainstorm mix is people with different specializations. The
ones not-expert in field X are most likely to have new ideas about X.

Sure, that seems right. The \'field X\' is a kind of limited viewpoint,
like only considering electronic components that are available in
washable surfacemount. Sometimes the limit is good, sometimes not.

Famously, mil-spec component testing regimens were wasteful and tedious,
but didn\'t die until AFTER they got ridiculous, and COTS became the
buzzword. Imagine boxed small-signal diodes with serial numbers...

That were less reliable than stuff from Allied.

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:17:13 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:13:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
as not, represses ideas.

Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
Is that what you call \'represses ideas\'?

Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong,
mean... what, exactly? I\'m hearing bafflegab.

You are hearing ideas that you instantly reject. QED.

No, I\'m seeing text that describes no coherent thought.

The QED belongs at the end of a stream of logic; no logic seen in
its vicinity, that time.

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:51:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:17:13 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:13:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
as not, represses ideas.

Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
Is that what you call \'represses ideas\'?

Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong,
mean... what, exactly? I\'m hearing bafflegab.

You are hearing ideas that you instantly reject. QED.

No, I\'m seeing text that describes no coherent thought.

Then think about it.

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:38:07 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:51:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:17:13 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:13:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often
as not, represses ideas.

Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
Is that what you call \'represses ideas\'?

Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong,
mean... what, exactly? I\'m hearing bafflegab.

You are hearing ideas that you instantly reject. QED.

No, I\'m seeing text that describes no coherent thought.
Then think about it.

About incoherent text? I did think about it, it\'s noise overwhelming
any signal content. The \'think about it\' response isn\'t informative, either.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, September 29, 2022 at 12:32:15 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:

On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 5:38:07 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 15:51:54 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 28, 2022 at 7:17:13 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 22:13:15 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, September 27, 2022 at 8:28:36 PM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

Experts are often wrong, or meta-wrong in this case. Expertise, often as not, represses ideas.

Every correct sum (2+2 = 4) contradicts hundreds of incorrect ones (2+2 = 7.32...)?
Is that what you call \'represses ideas\'?

Statements can be true or false, and can be tested. Wrong, or meta-wrong, means... what, exactly? I\'m hearing bafflegab.

You are hearing ideas that you instantly reject. QED.

\"Meta-wrong\" isn\'t an idea. It\'s word-play - at best. Experts aren\'t - in fact - often wrong. They wouldn\'t be seen as experts if they were. They are familiar with the well-known ways of solving problems, which isn\'t all that useful in brain-storming sessions, but they are also familiar with popular errors that don\'t actually work in practice, which can be useful.

No, I\'m seeing text that describes no coherent thought.

Then think about it.

About incoherent text? I did think about it, it\'s noise overwhelming any signal content. The \'think about it\' response isn\'t informative, either.

Not really. We all already know about John Larkin\'s tendency to react negatively and dismissively to critical responses. He doesn\'t need to be quite so reliable about it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney