Chip with simple program for Toy

[John Fields]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:15:49 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

"You are vexed therefore I am right about you."

-- Nietzsche

---
More hiding (dodging, as you are wont to say about everyone's
activities but your own) behind snips?

Nietzsche, at least, was honest.

And you?

You're nothing more than a churl dedicated to self-aggrandizement
through the use of tomfoolery.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:21:06 -0700 (PDT), Video61@tcq.net wrote:

On Aug 22, 11:29 am, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:
and he still refuses to answer a simple question. i have run into a
few like that. i give them a short line or two to refute, i get back
reams of nonsense, that when i am done reading it, still does not
answer my question. so good luck.

---
What you don't seem to understand is that Cahill isn't looking for an
answer, he's looking for a response that he can use as a springboard
to continue his nonsensical rhetoric.

BTW, in conventional English, The first word in a sentence is
capitalized.

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:21:19 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

This is not a wager. ?It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

? And what possible use could the answer to that question have?

Well into 13 figures a year to the U. S. economy.

So what?

?now there is a fine example of a logic. its called "what me worry"

Actually he has "bigger fish to fry" than trillions a year, i. e.,
trying to debate a self evident truth.

I have no fish to fry,

Why are you always stating the obvious?

---
If it was obvious that I have no fish to fry, then why did you claim I
had?
---

I just like to burst balloons.

No wonder you're vexed!

---
Hardly vexed, more like pleased when they go POP!

Especially yours, which are so easy to do!
---

Anyway you have once again dodged the issue:

---
There is no issue; all you've done is blown up a silly balloon which
Shrikeback took care of quite nicely and left _you_ vexed.
---

You don't have to be very bright to agree with a self evident truth
but you have to be a complete dunce to try to disagree with one.

Here, try to tell us why the following might not be a self evident
truth:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

We're settin' on the edges of our chairs.

---
As I said, that question's already been answered and your logic's been
nicely skewered time and time again, so there's really no point in
continuing with this.

BTW, why are you posting your drivel to a technical newsgroup where
you're persona non grata?


JF

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:25:10 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

"You are vexed therefore I am right about you."

---
One trick pony, huh?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:32:50 +0100, "Fleetie"
<fleetie@fleetie.demon.co.uk> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote
BTW, in conventional English, The first word in a sentence is
capitalized.

In conventional English, "capitalised" is spelt with
an "s".

---
True, but I'm not writing in conventional English, I'm writing in
American English where 'spelt' is spelt 'spelled'.
---

I really wish this Cahill nincompoop would fuck off out
of s.e.b., for (last time I read any of it), his nonsense
had little to nothing to do with electronics. And most of
the threads I see on here now were originated by him.

---
Indeed.

He seems to be a pretty high-maintenance type who uses obvious
nonsense in order to call attention to himself and entice those who
would correct him into endless, meaningless dialogue.
---

If this were "real life", and he'd gone into say, clubs
and societies around a city, and started shouting rubbish over
people while they engaged in their various discussions,
and continued it for weeks, and forced entry when he was
told he was persona non grata, then pretty soon, several
people would get together and "pay him a visit" that would
convince him never to try it again.

---
We have the "plonk" but, unfortunately, it's not quite the same,
---

Groups trimmed to just s.e.b..

Good idea.

JF

 

[alexy]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

"Freedom speech on the germane economic issues for all parties is a
precondition of each and every free trade."

This moving target is an example of why people have been asking you to
define your terms, and, of course, the opportunity to move the target
once it is hit is why you haven't.

When asked to define your terms, your response was "define them any
way you want".

Michael did.

Game. Set. Match.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

 

[alexy]

Video61@tcq.net wrote:

and he still refuses to answer a simple question. i have run into a
few like that. i give them a short line or two to refute, i get back
reams of nonsense, that when i am done reading it, still does not
answer my question. so good luck.

Brings to mind the expression "pot calling the kettle black"
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

 

[Stray Dog]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008, alexy wrote:

Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:00:18 -0400
From: alexy <nospam@asbry.net
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy, sci.econ, sci.energy, sci.electronics.basics,
alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: $200 for Answer From An Outspoken "Market" Economist

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

"Freedom speech on the germane economic issues for all parties is a
precondition of each and every free trade."

Freedom of speech, in any context of free trade, is always more the
priviledge of "the stronger" (or richer) party. "Free" trade is a
misnomer; the issue is how much the "freedom" costs and who can pay for
it, who can influence it, who can define it, who can control it, and for
how long. The presence of a Walmart store in your neighborhood is not an
example of "free" trade, but closer to a near-monopoly seller to
individual customers and a near-monopsomy buyer from factories.

This moving target is an example of why people have been asking you to
define your terms, and, of course, the opportunity to move the target
once it is hit is why you haven't.

Everyone should read "The Robber-Barrons" by Mathew Josephson to see how
the robber barrons anchored their targets and shot at them like fish in a
barrel.

When asked to define your terms, your response was "define them any
way you want".

The simplest and most valid analysis would be to observe how the flow of
money from the many poor, towards the few rich, always exceeds any flow of
money from the rich to the poor. viz. see the studies by Saez and Pickety,
for example.

 

[Bill Ward]

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:56:15 -0700, Shrikeback wrote:

On Aug 23, 9:12 am, Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

The simplest and most valid analysis would be to observe how the flow of
money from the many poor, towards the few rich, always exceeds any flow
of money from the rich to the poor. viz. see the studies by Saez and
Pickety, for example.

That defies all logic. How can money flow from the poor (who, by
definition, don't have any) to the rich?

Perhaps another way of phrasing it is that money always flows from
consumers to producers. Everyone who consumes value needs to produce an
equal amount, or the system is out of balance. Money, wages, and prices
are just components of the feedback mechanism that maintains equilibrium.
Like all balances, it works better without a finger on the scales.

 

[DB]

Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 23, 9:12 am, Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

The simplest and most valid analysis would be to observe how the flow of
money from the many poor, towards the few rich, always exceeds any flow of
money from the rich to the poor. viz. see the studies by Saez and Pickety,
for example.

That defies all logic. How can money flow from the poor
(who, by definition, don't have any) to the rich?

Premise: poor don't have money. Hmmmmm...

Therefor by 'all logic' poor wealth can't flow to the rich. So the poor
don't work, (create wealth)?

Then, there is the observation. So, by 'all logic' the observation
should be thrown out?

Hmmmm...

 

On Aug 23, 9:12 am, Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

The simplest and most valid analysis would be to observe how the flow of
money from the many poor, towards the few rich, always exceeds any flow of
money from the rich to the poor. viz. see the studies by Saez and Pickety,
for example.

That defies all logic. How can money flow from the poor
(who, by definition, don't have any) to the rich?

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

beast_hosting wrote:

Top Thing To Look For In A Web Host

One who isn't so desperate for customers that they have to resort to
spam. it's a sure sign they are in financial trouble, or they would use
legitimate advertising. Play it safe and use an established web host.
There are plenty availible.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:34:38 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 23:19:07 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Aug 23, 4:36 pm, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 16:01:25 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist

reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Descartes attempts to create a foundationalist philosophy based on a
single, undeniable truth which he knows to be "fixed and assured". He
takes "I think, therefore I am" "as the first principle of the
philosophy I was seeking", believing that this is the only truth which
is necessary to found a philosophy. His logical structure , however,
relies on a second postulate. He claims that "the capacity to judge
correctly and to distinguish the true from the false is naturally
equal in all men". This postulate is more fundamental to his logical
structure than the cogito because without it, he cannot escape the
skepticism of his foundationalist structure.

That's just silly. Some people have no talent for thinking, and a lot
of people who potentially have talent haven't practised enough to get
any good at it.

Learning to think is like learning most other things: have some good
instructors; do it a lot; get good feedback.

Descartes obviously didn't.

John

But weren't you attempting to create a foundationalist philosophy
based on a single, undeniable truth, the giveness of sense data which
you somehow believe is "fixed and assured"?

No, I attempt to design and sell electronic circuits. Since it almost
always works, I must understand something close to the way the world
operates.

But if that were all
there was to this truth, there would be just the seemingness of sense
experience. In order to say anything else about it or interpret the
seemingness of sense wouldn't you need the capacity to judge correctly
and to distinguish the true from the false? These arguments are
separate from the sense data given.

If the stuff works, and unless my entire universe is delusional (all
those numbers on the test equipment, all those purchase orders... all
illusions?) then I must be pretty close to right. And when I'm wrong,
I find out fast and fix it.

Really, life's not all that difficult. Just do what works.


That's his problem. His life doesn't work, so he has to spin silly
scenatios.

I can't say it's a problem for him (but it's pretty definitely a
problem for Brett) but yes, people who aren't successful in dealing
with reality tend to go on and question the validity of that reality.
What they might consider questioning is their own learning skills.

Immort seems interested in issues of organization and dynamics, as am
I. He seems to have researched it better; I spend too much time
reading Aviation Week and Microwave Journal. He sure uses a lot more
words.

John

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

John Larkin wrote:

I can't say it's a problem for him (but it's pretty definitely a
problem for Brett) but yes, people who aren't successful in dealing
with reality tend to go on and question the validity of that reality.
What they might consider questioning is their own learning skills.

Immort seems interested in issues of organization and dynamics, as am
I. He seems to have researched it better; I spend too much time
reading Aviation Week and Microwave Journal. He sure uses a lot more
words.

I find that people who run on and on like him tend to not have much to
sat, but try to hide it. I wonder if he was on fire if he would yell
"HELP ME", or write a 500+ line message about what the fire felt like,
and how his skin and flesh could burn so easily?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

aioe.org, Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white
listed, or I will not see your messages.

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm


There are two kinds of people on this earth:
The crazy, and the insane.
The first sign of insanity is denying that you're crazy.

 

[DB]

Shrikeback@gmail.com wrote:

On Aug 23, 1:24 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:
Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:12 am, Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
The simplest and most valid analysis would be to observe how the flow of
money from the many poor, towards the few rich, always exceeds any flow of
money from the rich to the poor. viz. see the studies by Saez and Pickety,
for example.
That defies all logic. How can money flow from the poor
(who, by definition, don't have any) to the rich?
Premise: poor don't have money. Hmmmmm...

Therefor by 'all logic' poor wealth can't flow to the rich. So the poor
don't work, (create wealth)?


Then, there is the observation. So, by 'all logic' the observation
should be thrown out?

Hmmmm...


It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.

How is that 'self evident'? What do you 'see'?

The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created.

One can be robbed by another, so, it is not the only way.

If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.

I'll stick to the observation. But to say the mechanics is 'wrong',
therefor the observation is wrong, is in poor form.

Properly is to accept the observation and work out the mechanics from there.

It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

Poor does not equal 'none'. Your definition, premise, is wrong.

 

On Aug 23, 1:24 pm, DB <a...@some.net> wrote:

Shrikeb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:12 am, Stray Dog <sdog2...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:

The simplest and most valid analysis would be to observe how the flow of
money from the many poor, towards the few rich, always exceeds any flow of
money from the rich to the poor. viz. see the studies by Saez and Pickety,
for example.

That defies all logic.  How can money flow from the poor
(who, by definition, don't have any) to the rich?

Premise: poor don't have money. Hmmmmm...

Therefor by 'all logic' poor wealth can't flow to the rich. So the poor
don't work, (create wealth)?

Then, there is the observation. So, by 'all logic' the observation
should be thrown out?

Hmmmm...

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.
The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created. If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.
It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

 

[Bret Cahill]

This is not a wager. ?It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

? And what possible use could the answer to that question have?

Well into 13 figures a year to the U. S. economy.

So what?

?now there is a fine example of a logic. its called "what me worry"

Actually he has "bigger fish to fry" than trillions a year, i. e.,
trying to debate a self evident truth.

I have no fish to fry,

Back to humble mode?

Why are you always stating the obvious?

If it was obvious that I have no fish to fry, then why did you claim I
had?

I said you had _bigger_ fish to fry than a few trillion dollars a
year.

It should have been obvious to all but complete morons I was being
sarcastic.

I just like to burst balloons.

No wonder you're vexed!

Hardly vexed,

Your swearing alone gives you away.

.. . .

You don't have to be very bright to agree with a self evident truth
but you have to be a complete dunce to try to disagree with one.

Here, try to tell us why the following might not be a self evident
truth:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

We're settin' on the edges of our chairs.

As I said, that question's already been answered

I can repost the question and get you all upset but you cannot get
even by reposting the answer.

I must have a better 'puter or sumthin'.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

and he still refuses to answer a simple question. i have run into a
few like that. i give them a short line or two to refute, i get back
reams of nonsense, that when i am done reading it, still does not
answer my question. so good luck.

What you don't seem to understand is that Cahill isn't looking for an
answer,

I'll pay $200 US for an answer to the question from an outspoken
market economist at Hoover Inst., Am. Enterprise, Heritage Foundation,
Cato the Chicago School, von Mises, etc.

he's looking for a response that he can use as a springboard
to continue his nonsensical rhetoric.

But it won't be continued here.

In fact, I'm uppin' the ante!

In addition to the $200 I'll stop posting to newsgroups for 3 months
if anyone can get an answer to The Question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade."

Imagine that! Going 3 months without having your bubble popped by
Bret "the Pin Cushion" Cahill


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 14:14:46 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

This is not a wager. ?It is a free market free trade offer.

I'll pay $200 US for a hard copy answer to The Question from an
outspoken "market" economist at the Hoover Inst., Heritage Foundation,
American Enterprise, Cato, the Chicago School of Economics, von
Mises.*

The Question is:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

? And what possible use could the answer to that question have?

Well into 13 figures a year to the U. S. economy.

So what?

?now there is a fine example of a logic. its called "what me worry"

Actually he has "bigger fish to fry" than trillions a year, i. e.,
trying to debate a self evident truth.

I have no fish to fry,

Back to humble mode?

---
Nope.

As always, just real.
---

Why are you always stating the obvious?

If it was obvious that I have no fish to fry, then why did you claim I
had?

I said you had _bigger_ fish to fry than a few trillion dollars a
year.

---
And you expect anyone to believe you when your rhetoric is derogatory?
---

I must have a better 'puter or sumthin'.

---
Nope, just a belief that you're God, even though you can't bring back
an ant from the dead.
JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

It's self-evident: poor wealth does not flow to the rich.
The only way for the rich to get richer is for new
wealth to be created. �If you mean that the labor
of the poor is being expropriated, just say so.
It's absurd to claim that their wealth is being taken
away, since they have none, by definition.

The poor are never properly paid for their work in the first place.

This is why the outspoken market economists will always dodge The
Question, "does free speech precede each and every free trade?"

They know supporting the precondition of free markets, free speech,
would cause free markets which would would level wealth which is
_exactly_ what would get them fired.

They'll eventually need to retrain for the productive sector anyway
because it's so cheap and easy for anyone here to send polite letters
by tracking mail to the "outspoken" market economists.

And then post the letters and numbers here.

The letter could read:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My Address
Hometown, ST,
ZIPCO-DEXX

Thomas Sowell
Economics Dept.
Hoover Inst.
Stanford CA, 94546

Dear Dr. Sowell:

I'm a great admirer of your lofty work. There's a lowly leftwing
smelly obnoxious commie liberaloon peacenik Democrat trolling
newsgroups under the handle "Bret Cahill" who claims he has inside
information on Hoover fellows and that you will refuse any request to
answer a simple question:

"Does free speech precede each and every free trade."

He claims he'll pay $200 for a hard copy answer from you.

You can answer with any text you want.

If you spend 5 minutes writing "no" then we can split the money and
both average $1200/hr for our effort, or, even better, discredit that
Cahill guy.


Yours,


Chat Group Chuck

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Or you could pretend to agree with me. I could care less what you say
as long as you get a response to The Question.


Bret Cahill