Guest
In sci.physics GreenXenon <glucegen1x@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Zero watts.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
G
GreenXenon
Guest
On Jun 1, 10:30 am, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
What is the highest-wattage that won't raise the temperature of
anything beyond 70 Fahrenheit?
What is the highest-wattage that won't raise the temperature of
anything beyond 70 Fahrenheit?
K
krw
Guest
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 20:45:02 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Well, not quite. Zero watts won't _raise_ the temperature at all. ;-)
Guest
In sci.physics krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
based on the conditions of the question, and there aren't any.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
Correct, and it is the only power level guaranteed not to exceed 70 F
based on the conditions of the question, and there aren't any.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
I
ItsASecretDummy
Guest
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:34:43 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
You need to say that with a John Wayne inflection, as in:
"Yer jus' spittin' out words to see where they splatter..."
You need to say that with a John Wayne inflection, as in:
"Yer jus' spittin' out words to see where they splatter..."
I
ItsASecretDummy
Guest
On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 10:49:48 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Jeez, is that who this dumbfuck greenbabyshithead is?
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Jeez, is that who this dumbfuck greenbabyshithead is?
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
The photo indicates that it is patented but I'm having trouble finding
anything in the USPTO.
Could you post the patent number?
Thanks in advance.
Bret Cahill
anything in the USPTO.
Could you post the patent number?
Thanks in advance.
Bret Cahill
J
John Fields
Guest
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 22:34:06 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Still???
JF
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
---
Still???
JF
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Here, you try to find it:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:...
Go to the OP if that link doesn't work
The box had "Patented" on it.
It's hard to believe but some posters are so dumb they try to claim
they have patents when that's the easiest thing to check to prove they
are frauds.
You wouldn't know any dunces on sci.electronics.basics who are so
stupid they claim they have patents in their name when the USPTO has
no record of that name, do you?
Someone that dumb would do well to post under a handle.
Bret Cahill
J
John Fields
Guest
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 08:38:02 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Nope, but I know of _one_ who's so abysmally stupid that he doesn't even
know how to search by the inventor's name and blames his stupidity on
everyone else.
Try: IN/"Fields, III; John B."
---
Sounds OK to me; I suggest you try "pendejo"
JF
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
---
Nope, but I know of _one_ who's so abysmally stupid that he doesn't even
know how to search by the inventor's name and blames his stupidity on
everyone else.
Try: IN/"Fields, III; John B."
---
---
Sounds OK to me; I suggest you try "pendejo"
JF
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
Well, I can understand why you only have one patent. The one you have
is so worthless there is no way anyone could call you an inventor.
It's easy to unnerstand how the toy company went out of business.
Anyway, if it'll make you feel better, you can resume typing "LOL!"
Bret Cahill
J
John Fields
Guest
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 14:10:24 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
Faulty logic, since whether it's worth anything or not doesn't alter the
fact that my name appears on the patent as "inventor" _making_ me an
inventor.
But more to the point, pinhead, you finally managed to find it, huh?
Besides, I have hundreds of inventions in my Bag-O-Tricks, which makes
me my living and makes your "point" moot.
So... I'm a scientist and an inventor and you're neither, poor baby,
(although you flounder around desperately, trying to fool everyone
around here into thinking you are) all you are is a pissant court
reporter with a wasted life living out your Walter Mittyesque fantasies
on USENET.
As far as "worthless" goes, it made me a nice chunk of change and looks
good on my CV, so about the only thing that's worthless here is your
opinion about what's worthless and what isn't.
---
Yup, if you were there, but since you weren't it's certainly nothing
you'd know anything about.
---
If it'll make you feel any worse, I can do anything I want to.
Like this:
Brett Cahill lies over the ocean,
Brett Cahill lies over the sea,
Brett Cahill lies over the land mass
and lies both to you and to me.
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that it's all he can do, can do,
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that he lies to himself too.
He thinks his opinions are treasures,
he thinks his solutions are gold
but he has no answers, just ego,
if ever the truth would be told.
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that it's all he can do, can do,
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that he lies to himself too.
He tries to pretend to deep knowledge
of matters with technical bent,
but when called to task when he falters
replies "You misread what I meant."
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that it's all he can do, can do,
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that he lies to himself too.
It seems that he's learning by whiplash,
instead of admitting he's wrong
and having to feel he's indebted
to those who are wielding the thong.
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that it's all he can do, can do,
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that he lies to himself too.
JF
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
---
Faulty logic, since whether it's worth anything or not doesn't alter the
fact that my name appears on the patent as "inventor" _making_ me an
inventor.
But more to the point, pinhead, you finally managed to find it, huh?
Besides, I have hundreds of inventions in my Bag-O-Tricks, which makes
me my living and makes your "point" moot.
So... I'm a scientist and an inventor and you're neither, poor baby,
(although you flounder around desperately, trying to fool everyone
around here into thinking you are) all you are is a pissant court
reporter with a wasted life living out your Walter Mittyesque fantasies
on USENET.
As far as "worthless" goes, it made me a nice chunk of change and looks
good on my CV, so about the only thing that's worthless here is your
opinion about what's worthless and what isn't.
---
---
Yup, if you were there, but since you weren't it's certainly nothing
you'd know anything about.
---
---
If it'll make you feel any worse, I can do anything I want to.
Like this:
Brett Cahill lies over the ocean,
Brett Cahill lies over the sea,
Brett Cahill lies over the land mass
and lies both to you and to me.
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that it's all he can do, can do,
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that he lies to himself too.
He thinks his opinions are treasures,
he thinks his solutions are gold
but he has no answers, just ego,
if ever the truth would be told.
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that it's all he can do, can do,
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that he lies to himself too.
He tries to pretend to deep knowledge
of matters with technical bent,
but when called to task when he falters
replies "You misread what I meant."
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that it's all he can do, can do,
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that he lies to himself too.
It seems that he's learning by whiplash,
instead of admitting he's wrong
and having to feel he's indebted
to those who are wielding the thong.
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that it's all he can do, can do,
Brett lies, Brett lies, it seems that he lies to himself too.
JF
B
Bret Cahill
Guest
On Jun 2, 9:18�pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Novels.
No ifs ands or buts about it.
Bret Cahill
Don't take it personally but you need to go back to Harliquin Romance
Novels.
Yer a dunce.
No ifs ands or buts about it.
Bret Cahill
K
krw
Guest
On Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:18:25 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
search. He was totally incapable of figuring out the search without
the exact string.
;-)
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
Only after you gave him a string he could cut and paste into the
search. He was totally incapable of figuring out the search without
the exact string.
Exactly. Comrade Cahill is well known to be a Usenet loser.
Patents do indeed look good on the CV. Made me money for nothing too.
;-)
J
John Fields
Guest
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009 21:27:27 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
It's "Harlequin", but why do you think that?
Is there something about them that you find particularly appealing?
---
Geez, if that's the best you can do, you're also a loser when it comes
to confrontational rhetoric.
Nothing original, or clever, just the same old time-wasting banal crap
you spew trying to fool yourself into believing that you're in the game.
JF
<BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:
---
It's "Harlequin", but why do you think that?
Is there something about them that you find particularly appealing?
---
---
Geez, if that's the best you can do, you're also a loser when it comes
to confrontational rhetoric.
Nothing original, or clever, just the same old time-wasting banal crap
you spew trying to fool yourself into believing that you're in the game.
JF
J
John Fields
Guest
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:41:36 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
Yup.
---
Yup.
---
Congrats!
JF
---
Yup.
---
---
Yup.
---
---
Congrats!
JF
M
Michael A. Terrell
Guest
John Fields wrote:
The only game bret is in is 'Russian Roulette', but the bastard is
too cheap to even buy a single bullet.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
The only game bret is in is 'Russian Roulette', but the bastard is
too cheap to even buy a single bullet.
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
Guest
On Jun 2, 9:18 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
<snip>
as there are often useful 'nuggets' to be found.
Thanks
G˛
<snip>
Looks like you've found _another_ sideline. YOUR posts I always read
as there are often useful 'nuggets' to be found.
Thanks
G˛
J
John Fields
Guest
On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 21:53:51 -0700 (PDT), stratus46@yahoo.com wrote:
That's very kind; thanks!
JF
---
That's very kind; thanks!
JF
K
krw
Guest
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:27:34 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm sure it wouldn't take long to take up a collection.