Chip with simple program for Toy

[Michael B]

Preparing to wind a motor coil or more. Need some info to consider a
shortcut. Putting aside the issue of current handling capacity, does
anyone have awareness of whether a multistrand wire made of smaller
magnet wires can serve instead of a single wire with the same number
of windings?

On Jan 8, 9:00 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
Please...

Holding down a scroll key to get to the beginning of a top-posted series
of articles is at least 50% less efficacious than having the oldest
article on top since once you've read the stack and gotten to the bottom
you can type your article there instead of having to scroll back to the
top to do it.

You're right about one thing though, and that's that groups which orient
themselves as if they were email and either pretend or are stupid enough
to think that everyone knows what went before should probably stick to
the email format instead of burdening themselves with learning how to
post properly.

Even Google Groups, that bastion for the clueless states, from:

http://groups.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12348&topic=250

"Summarize what you're following up.

When you click "Reply" under "show options" to follow up an existing
article, Google Groups includes the full article in quotes, with the
cursor at the top of the article. Tempting though it is to just start
typing your message, please STOP and do two things first.  
Look at the quoted text and remove parts  that are irrelevant.
Then, go to the BOTTOM of the article and start typing there.
Doing this makes it much easier for your readers to get through your
post.  They'll have a reminder of the relevant text before your
comment, but won't have to re-read the entire article.  
And if your reply appears on a site before the original article does,
they'll get the gist of what you're talking about."

So, you see, even though you pretend to fight valiantly, tooth and nail,
to defend your untenable position, in truth you're reduced yourself to
nothing more than a laughingstock low-grade troll since even the lowest
common denominator is apprised of proper usenetiquette, which you choose
to flaunt for the sole purpose of attracting unwarranted attention by
tilting at windmills and fomenting trouble.  
---

Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.
That would suggest top posting being
more appropriate,

---
As well as being a red herring, that statement is false since bottom and
in-line posting, when appropriate, is the posting style of choice for
anyone who reads from left to right and from top to bottom.

Just think about how you're reading this sentence; are you starting from
the eroteme and reading back back?

I don't think so, ergo: "as above, so below".  
---

along with ignoring
self-appointed net-cops that want to try
to force a practice they know to be
archaic and clumsy.

---
I'd say that applied more to you than to me since I'm merely defending
Google Groups' sage advice while (unless you're trying to troll, which
is more likely) you're trying to tear down a practice which serves
USENET in good stead and replace it with an onerous non-solution to a
non-problem.

Key phrase here is: "Don't fix it if it ain't broke." while what you
seem to be saying is: "If it works, break it so I can have my way."

Amazing what you creeps try to get away with, yes?

JF

 

[krw]

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:17:52 -0500, nospam@nevis.com wrote:

keithw86@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 8, 9:20 am, nos...@nevis.com wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:02:25 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@invaliid.con> wrote:
nos...@nevis.com> wrote in messagenews:4b46a039@news.x-privat.org...
Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead
Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
---
He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
---
Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
---
Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
Google's access policies.
However, Michael B, who at:
76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
stated:
"Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.",
indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
Do you disagree?
JF
All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
of the groups I used began to decline.

I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.


Most of my groups have gone from well over 100 posts a day to less than
five a week. One group I follow, Rec.antiques, had over 23,000
subscribers in 1997- 2000, now it has 605, but it goes for weeks without
anything but spam posts. It seems that no new members are coming on
board, the last one out please turn off the lights :~(((((

Because the NGs you follow are drying up, you can't extrapolate
anything to the Usenet in general. Some newsgroups are doing quite
well, in fact.

 

[Michael B]

If you get around to any roses-sniffing, here's a comment
that was in alt.home.repair that might be relevant to your
assertion that >90 % prefer bottom-posting.

Gets me, too. Ths group's the worst one I've ever seen
for it, and I don't know why that should be. I don't ever KF
people, but if I don't see some of their new content in a
message without having to scroll, I don't bother reading it.

On Jan 8, 9:38 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 21:33:50 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@invaliid.con> wrote:
Unbelievable. I didn't have to mouse scroll down and then back up again to
see if I missed anything...

and look! You header, and JF's is with your text and the one before it are
all in order.

I have seen many articles on top posting and it seems it will be the way of
the future once people get more modern Usenet browsers that can actually not
mix up the posting. Funny how these obstinates can use top posting everyday
for business email and then totally switch when posting in a forum like
Usenet.

I have used a few different newsgroup browsers and they all position the
curser at the top.

---
That's done as a courtesy to those who are reading the thread for the
first time as it allows them to read the thread using what most of us
accept as conventional chronology.

I suppose you regard it as an unfair intelligence test since you seem to
have so much trouble navigating the thread by moving the "curser" to the
salient part of the thread or to the most recent article.  

There are always special keystrokes to get to the bottom
but then you have to backtrack to find the top of the entry. Even the
signatures lines are handled by deleting them. So many groups use this
method now with the exception of a few old farts from the outdated IRC....LOL

---
"Even the signatures lines are handled by deleting them."???

Poor baby, you really _don't_ know how to use a proper newsreader, do
you?
---

This should have them cringing in their boots.

---

I used the words "browser",
"forum" and a few others that the "everbody has to be like me" trolls like
to cling onto...LOL

---
Sounds like that puts you squarely in the camp you so loudly denounce,
since you and the rest of your little junta want to saddle everyone with
top posting just to satisfy your bloated egos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_euKhE7rw0&feature=related
---

Have a good one.

---
I already do.

JF

 

krw wrote:

On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:17:52 -0500, nospam@nevis.com wrote:

keithw86@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 8, 9:20 am, nos...@nevis.com wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:02:25 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@invaliid.con> wrote:
nos...@nevis.com> wrote in messagenews:4b46a039@news.x-privat.org...
Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead
Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
---
He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
---
Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
---
Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
Google's access policies.
However, Michael B, who at:
76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
stated:
"Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.",
indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
Do you disagree?
JF
All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
of the groups I used began to decline.
I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.

Most of my groups have gone from well over 100 posts a day to less than
five a week. One group I follow, Rec.antiques, had over 23,000
subscribers in 1997- 2000, now it has 605, but it goes for weeks without
anything but spam posts. It seems that no new members are coming on
board, the last one out please turn off the lights :~(((((

Because the NGs you follow are drying up, you can't extrapolate
anything to the Usenet in general. Some newsgroups are doing quite
well, in fact.

Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
between new posts its days are numbered.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
between new posts its days are numbered.

Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a
sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start
banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all
over!!!"

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
between new posts its days are numbered.

Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a
sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start
banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all
over!!!"

Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't
believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were
even two years ago?

 

In article <4b462ad0$0$280$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, ArameFarpado <a-farpado.spam@netcabo.pt> wrote:

Em Quinta 07 Janeiro 2010 08:27, no.top.post@gmail.com escreveu:

In article <4b44e3c5$0$275$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, ArameFarpado
a-farpado.spam@netcabo.pt> wrote:

Em Quarta 06 Janeiro 2010 17:23, no.top.post@gmail.com escreveu:
But I can't understand since the UPS is designed to switch on AFTER
the mains failure.

wrong.

OK, I don't want to influence original contributions, by giving my
full present analysis. But the failure process takes a finite time.
And I insist that the UPS can only acts AFTER the beginning of the
mains 'failure process'.

Can you contribute more than "wrong" ?

You are confusing a UPS with a emergency electric generator; those are the
ones that start working after the power goes off.
A UPS needs to keep the power up without letting it go down even for a split
second.

Let's be more scientific: at 50 Hz, there are zero-crossings every 10 ms.

The only switch a ups does when the power goes off is that it stops charging
the batteries. The output of a UPS is allways given by the same circuits
regardless if the power is on or off

with power on:

main power -> AC-DC converter -> DC-AC converter -> output
-> charge batteries.

with power off:

batteries -> DC-AC converter -> output

this is the only way that an ups can keep the output on without any breaks.

So the computer is fed from the UPS *always*,
and the "switch over is only from (accum to ) or (mains to D2A) ?

M-A2D-D2A->C
----B-D2A->C

so resuming: if the ups's output is given the wrong voltage, frequency,
sinosoidal wave, etc... you have two choices:
1- repair the ups
2- replace the ups.

What did I write to suggest that "the ups's output is given the wrong" output ?

How would that cause the earth-leakage to activate ?
============
philo wrote:

So the conclusion is reversed from what has happened

It was a ground fault which *caused* the power interruption.

The UPS simply was on because the "mains" breaker had tripped

No it's a chain of events over a few milliseconds.
The UPS detects that the mains is 'abnormal' and switches;
which causes an earth-leakage abnormality.
My problem is that since the earth-leakage AFAIK is mechanical,
it should not react to the spike caused by the UPS.

What are typical earth leakage response times?
=============

if you have electrical questions, it's better to put them in
sci.electronics.basics
yes, the boys here are just guessing.

i can tell you that if you desconnect the earth, ther will be no more a
neutral in the output, you will have two live lines with a voltage
between them, and that could cause other issues.

Yes disabling the earth-leakage-detector is not good.
==========

so resuming: if the ups's output is given the wrong voltage, frequency,
sinosoidal wave, etc... you have two choices: 1- repair the ups
2- replace the ups.

david wrote:-

This is only true with a double-conversion type UPS, which most cheap PC-
type UPS's are not. Most cheap UPSs have a transfer switch in them, so
the power is actually interrupted for a few milliseconds when the mains
fail.

Yes, I'd expect the computer PSU to 'hold over' for 2 cycles: 20 ms.

It seems that none of you are considering the interaction back to the
earth-leakage ?

== Thanks for any reasoned answers [not guesses].

 

[Sjouke Burry]

nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
between new posts its days are numbered.
Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a
sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start
banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all
over!!!"



Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't
believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were
even two years ago?
You start blathering on a group where there direct disproof of your

opinion.
Daily a batch of messages, and only when people like you come around,
trolling , things get ugly.
So improve the group and vanish.....

 

[Michael B]

I'm not convinced it's a trolling.
I looked at the listing from a year ago at this time.
There were several active topics, and three spams.
Now, there are only about three active threads, and
they have deviated considerably off topic, and there
are at least 19 spams ranging from sneakers to
nudes.
So indeed, there is still a batch of daily messages,
if you call them that, but the signal-to-noise ratio
has gotten really bad since this time last year. And
that doesn't speak well for the future.

On Jan 10, 12:46 am, Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulf...@ppllaanneett.nnll>
wrote:

You start blathering on a group where there direct disproof of your
opinion.
Daily a batch of messages, and only when people like you come around,
trolling , things get ugly.
So improve the group and vanish.....

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 16:30:43 -0800 (PST), Michael B
<baughfam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

If you get around to any roses-sniffing, here's a comment
that was in alt.home.repair that might be relevant to your
assertion that >90 % prefer bottom-posting.

Gets me, too. Ths group's the worst one I've ever seen
for it, and I don't know why that should be. I don't ever KF
people, but if I don't see some of their new content in a
message without having to scroll, I don't bother reading it.

---
Trying to be cute, huh?

One post out of millions hardly refutes my assertion, and that straw man
you're trying to pass off as top posting, isn't

What you've posted is a commentary on an article which you're quoting,
with the quotation (which you've failed to mark as a quotation, BTW)
following the comment.

That isn't top posting and is an acceptable construct.

However, failing to trim the irrelevant material following your quote
isn't, so I trimmed it for you just so you could see how much neater and
more readable your posts would look if you posted like they do in Rome.

JF

 

Sjouke Burry wrote:

nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
between new posts its days are numbered.
Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a
sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start
banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all
over!!!"



Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't
believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were
even two years ago?
You start blathering on a group where there direct disproof of your
opinion.
Daily a batch of messages, and only when people like you come around,
trolling , things get ugly.
So improve the group and vanish.....

I have been posting to alt.energy.homepower since 1998, there used to be
in excess of 100 post a day here at one point...Telling the truth does
not make one a troll.

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:53:30 -0800 (PST), Michael B
<baughfam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

I'm not convinced it's a trolling.
I looked at the listing from a year ago at this time.
There were several active topics, and three spams.
Now, there are only about three active threads, and
they have deviated considerably off topic, and there
are at least 19 spams ranging from sneakers to
nudes.
So indeed, there is still a batch of daily messages,
if you call them that, but the signal-to-noise ratio
has gotten really bad since this time last year. And
that doesn't speak well for the future.

---
SPAM is easy to control with properly configured filters and a decent
newsreader, and threads will wind about and go on and off topic; that's
why they're called threads...

On the other hand, shunning malevolent elements like you is a little
more difficult and putting you in your place usually requires more time
and effort than is devoted to answering the simple technical queries
expected here.

I'm sure that some folks object to your shenanigans and leave, just to
get you out of their hair, just as I'm sure there are many more who
enjoy seeing you getting slapped around and some, indeed, who enjoy
doing the slapping.

Bottom line is, I think, if the attrition isn't natural because of, say,
a growing lack of interest in basic electronics, then it's at least
partially due to trolls like you who make spending time here less than
enjoyable for those who wish the newsgroup's charter would be more
closely adhered to.


JF

 

John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:53:30 -0800 (PST), Michael B
baughfam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

I'm not convinced it's a trolling.
I looked at the listing from a year ago at this time.
There were several active topics, and three spams.
Now, there are only about three active threads, and
they have deviated considerably off topic, and there
are at least 19 spams ranging from sneakers to
nudes.
So indeed, there is still a batch of daily messages,
if you call them that, but the signal-to-noise ratio
has gotten really bad since this time last year. And
that doesn't speak well for the future.

---
SPAM is easy to control with properly configured filters and a decent
newsreader, and threads will wind about and go on and off topic; that's
why they're called threads...

On the other hand, shunning malevolent elements like you is a little
more difficult and putting you in your place usually requires more time
and effort than is devoted to answering the simple technical queries
expected here.

I'm sure that some folks object to your shenanigans and leave, just to
get you out of their hair, just as I'm sure there are many more who
enjoy seeing you getting slapped around and some, indeed, who enjoy
doing the slapping.

Bottom line is, I think, if the attrition isn't natural because of, say,
a growing lack of interest in basic electronics, then it's at least
partially due to trolls like you who make spending time here less than
enjoyable for those who wish the newsgroup's charter would be more
closely adhered to.


JF

Trolls are hardly the issue, the legendary trolls and spammers of the
1990's couldn't kill usenet, even though they could block a group for
days with massive attacks. The attrition is what it is, with the
exception of downloading media files Usenet has been is serious decline
for the last five years, it's now getting down to the diehards ( of
which I'm one) who get fewer all the time.

 

[krw]

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 20:41:50 -0500, nospam@nevis.com wrote:

krw wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:17:52 -0500, nospam@nevis.com wrote:

keithw86@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 8, 9:20 am, nos...@nevis.com wrote:
John Fields wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 00:02:25 -0500, "Josepi" <J...@invaliid.con> wrote:
nos...@nevis.com> wrote in messagenews:4b46a039@news.x-privat.org...
Usenet reads like a book, top posters are a pain in the ass. Doesn't
matter anyway, usenet is dead
Exactly, so why would you start at the bottom with your post?
---
He didn't, he _finished_ at the bottom of the thread.
Moreover, if your "Exactly" indicates agreement, then posting your
reply at the beginning of the book instead of at the end indicates that
you're as ignorant about chronolgy as you are about usenetiquette.
Little surprise from someone who reads USENET with a "browser"
---
Bottom posting arguments and other general stupidity is killing it.
---
Bottom-posting isn't, since it's the norm for USENET posting, but
general stupidity might be, viewed in the light of your recent posts and
Google's access policies.
However, Michael B, who at:
76754153-f710-4fd0-8a3c-e30d5bca5...@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
stated:
"Hmm, now that I think of it, there is an
enormous number of specific-interest
groups, more being formed all the time.",
indicating that _he_ thinks USENET is growing.
Do you disagree?
JF
All of the groups I have used since 1996 have shrunk to a few members
who seem to post out of habit or are " just checking in". Some now such
as alt.culture.luddites, are so vacant they don't even have spam posts.
My ISP , as well as a number of others stopped free access to newsgroups
three years ago, which seemed to be about the time new membership in any
of the groups I used began to decline.
I still follow several quite active NGs. Some continue to pay for
Usenet access. I've been paying for at least five years, well before
my ISPs dropped free access. It's not expensive.

Most of my groups have gone from well over 100 posts a day to less than
five a week. One group I follow, Rec.antiques, had over 23,000
subscribers in 1997- 2000, now it has 605, but it goes for weeks without
anything but spam posts. It seems that no new members are coming on
board, the last one out please turn off the lights :~(((((

Because the NGs you follow are drying up, you can't extrapolate
anything to the Usenet in general. Some newsgroups are doing quite
well, in fact.


Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
between new posts its days are numbered.

Ok, I'll admit that the groups you follow are drying up. It doesn't
seem to be universal, though.

 

[krw]

On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 00:53:30 -0800 (PST), Michael B
<baughfam@bellsouth.net> wrote:

I'm not convinced it's a trolling.
I looked at the listing from a year ago at this time.
There were several active topics, and three spams.
Now, there are only about three active threads, and
they have deviated considerably off topic, and there
are at least 19 spams ranging from sneakers to
nudes.

You're posting from Google. It's no wonder you're inundated with
spam. Get a decent newsreader and dump Google and you'll see
virtually no spam. Google is the problem, not the Usenet.

So indeed, there is still a batch of daily messages,
if you call them that, but the signal-to-noise ratio
has gotten really bad since this time last year. And
that doesn't speak well for the future.

Because you use Google.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
between new posts its days are numbered.

Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a
sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start
banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all
over!!!"


Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't
believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were
even two years ago?

You're a messenger? Not likely. You're just an angry twit.

As far as the number of messages? Giganews shows 141563 messages for
sci.electronics.basics since early 2003.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

nospam@nevis.com wrote:

I have been posting to alt.energy.homepower since 1998, there used to be
in excess of 100 post a day here at one point...Telling the truth does
not make one a troll.

You are also crossposting to news:sci.electronics.basics


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
between new posts its days are numbered.
Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a
sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start
banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all
over!!!"

Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't
believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were
even two years ago?


You're a messenger? Not likely. You're just an angry twit.

As far as the number of messages? Giganews shows 141563 messages for
sci.electronics.basics since early 2003.

What calendar are you using? I said:

"You don't believe postings are now far lower to this group than what
they were even two years ago?"

It's now 2010, two years ago was 2008, not 2003. Even so that only works
out to about 55 posts a day from 2003. Show me the stats from 2008 to
the current date........So far for the month of January ( as of this
post) there are only 50 posts to sci.electronics.basics. I'm not the
only one who notices thi, 13 of the 50 posts have the subject line
"Maybe time to shut down this newsgroup".

 

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

nospam@nevis.com wrote:
I have been posting to alt.energy.homepower since 1998, there used to be
in excess of 100 post a day here at one point...Telling the truth does
not make one a troll.


You are also crossposting to news:sci.electronics.basics

I am aware of that, until this week I haven't posted anything to
sci.electronics.basics since about 1999. The message I originally
responded to was posted to both groups. The same situation is apparent
at sci.electronics.basics as well alt.energy.homepower.

Other groups I visit on a regular basis that used to have useful
informations such as alt.energy.renewable, alt. energy hydrogen etc. are
now full of global warming/climate change arguments with a links to
anything remotely connected with renewable energy a rarity.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
nospam@nevis.com wrote:

Come on, admit it. I don't like the fact it's dying anymore then the
next regular user. I've a wide range of interests from a-z and all the
groups are a shadow of what they once were. Even this one is down to
1105 members, of which only about a dozen people regularly post.
When you see a group with only a half dozen threads going and days
between new posts its days are numbered.
Then its time for youto unplug your computer and beat it with a
sledge hammer. When there is nothing left that you vcan identify, start
banging your head into a brick wall while yelling, "It'll soon be all
over!!!"

Typical, don't like the message and attack the messenger....You don't
believe postings are now far lower to this group than what they were
even two years ago?


You're a messenger? Not likely. You're just an angry twit.

As far as the number of messages? Giganews shows 141563 messages for
sci.electronics.basics since early 2003.


What calendar are you using? I said:

"You don't believe postings are now far lower to this group than what
they were even two years ago?"

It's now 2010, two years ago was 2008, not 2003. Even so that only works
out to about 55 posts a day from 2003. Show me the stats from 2008 to
the current date........So far for the month of January ( as of this
post) there are only 50 posts to sci.electronics.basics. I'm not the
only one who notices thi, 13 of the 50 posts have the subject line
"Maybe time to shut down this newsgroup".

Yawn.....................................


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.