If You Cannot Understand My Posts, Then Obviously You Should

[Eric Gisin]

"Michael Black" <et472@ncf.ca> wrote in message
newsine.LNX.4.64.0807301358040.31834@darkstar.example.org...

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Bret Cahill wrote:

If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
Pell Grant and go to college.

Sorry, I don't have time to educate everyone. You need to focus on
the posts you understand.

From an idiot who is cross-posting this to
sci.energy
sci.electronics.basics
alt.philosophy
I seem to recall this nonsense started with even more irrelevant
newsgroups.

One mark of an idiot is that he cross-posts. This newsgroup, sci.electronics.basics, has been so
cluttered with these junk posts
that I have no idea who started it, but you are certainly continuing
it.

Once you cross-post to such varied newsgroups, you don't get discussion,
you get arguments. And cross-posting is the domain of the loon, not
just those who start it but those who reply. All kinds of newsgroups
have been devastated by such cross-posting, by idiots who don't actually
care about discussion but think their "message" is so important that
everyone should see it. So they cross-post and they get what they
deserve.

You will never be taken seriously, if that is your intent, if
you continue to cross-post. Find the appropriate newsgroup, I
doubt sci.electronics.basics is the one, and post your drivel there.

Actually, cross-posting to irrelevant groups is a sign of schizophrenia. Also:

going on irrelevant tangents, conspiracy theories, bizarre beliefs, "alternative" science,
new-age woo, vague/metaphoric language.

 

[Bret Cahill]

If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
Pell Grant and go to college.

You are the one with ZERO education.

You dodged the issue:

If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
Pell Grant and go to college.

Posting here is no substitute for a formal ecucation.

Then why are you and so many other nut cases responding to my posts?

� �The only nut case in the thread is you.

Dodge two:

Here, I'll try again:

Why are you and so many other nut cases responding to my posts?

Look, everyone agrees we need to get my readership down.

� �And miss your devolution while it is playing live, and still in
progress? ďż˝

Dodge three:

Everyone agrees we need to get my readership down.

Three dodges and you are OUT!

Care to try again?

 

[Bret Cahill]

Oh well, Bret was entertaining for a while but he's bitbin
fodder now.

Does this mean you'll stay on _other_ threads?

After all, we can all see my readership is too large.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 13:59:40 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
Pell Grant and go to college.

? ?You are the one with ZERO education.

Then why are you and so many other nut cases responding to my posts?

---
We're hardly nut cases.

The reason we respond to your posts is that we're trying to make
things better by letting you know that you, and whoever follows you,
are headed for disaster downstream.
---

Look, everyone agrees we need to get my readership down.

---
And yet, in the face of that, you keep posting.
---

Since I'm opposed to censorship my readership cannot be eliminated
altogether

---
Sure it can.

Just stop posting. It's not like your drivel is important anyway.
---

but we can all agree it would be greatly reduced if all you
nut jobs with nothing to say went to other threads.

---
The problem isn't that we have nothing to say, it's that you think you
_do_.


JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:34:13 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Oh well, Bret was entertaining for a while but he's bitbin
fodder now.

Does this mean you'll stay on _other_ threads?

After all, we can all see my readership is too large.

---
Actually, the problem isn't with the readership, it's with the
authorship.

JF

 

[Hammy]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
Pell Grant and go to college.

Sorry, I don't have time to educate everyone. You need to focus on
the posts you understand.


Bret Cahill



I think that you have successfully demonstrated your intellectual

superiority. I for one can't explain my confusion with mere words so
this will have to do.

http://i36.tinypic.com/ru4oxl.jpg

This group is for basic Electronic questions so no one here will pose
much of a challenge for you. You should continue this in a more
appropriate group maybe alt.mensa. I'm sure plenty of people there
would love to hear your drivel.

When I pulled 50+ headers for basic I actually thought something
worthwhile was being discussed ,I should know by now it's just another
asshole with to much spare time on his hands.

Another killfilter!

 

[Bret Cahill]

If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
Pell Grant and go to college.

? ?You are the one with ZERO education.

Then why are you and so many other nut cases responding to my posts?

We're hardly nut cases.

Circular furrows are impossible? And then trying to defend your [lack
of] reasoning on the matter?

Three months and $100,000 in diesel to plow a field?

I deal with all kinds of people and I've _never_ heard anything that
wacky over such a short period of time.

Forget about the Pell grant. You'll never get through the math.

The reason we respond to your posts is that we're trying to make
things better by letting you know that you, and whoever follows you,
are headed for disaster downstream.

Gonna laugh me to death with circular furrows?

You wouldn't sue over the IP me if I compiled your attempts to fake
being a techie would you?

Look, everyone agrees we need to get my readership down.

And yet, in the face of that, you keep posting.

If you can't take the heat, go to another thread.

Since I'm opposed to censorship my readership cannot be eliminated
altogether

Sure it can.

Just stop posting.

You have two choices:

1. Get ridiculed ever time you try to pretend you know anything about
science or technology, and/or

2. Cut/snip tech issues and dodge 'n flame 'n flame 'n dodge.

.. . .

The problem isn't that we have nothing to say,

Then why aren't you saying it?

There's only one answer: Every time you try to comment on tech you
know you'll get ridiculed.

it's that you think you
_do_.

If you think I'm not saying anything, then you need to take my advice
and go to another thread.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

If home 'n hearthers git pushed too far, are you going to shoot up
more "liberaloons."

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 07:32:30 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
Pell Grant and go to college.

? ?You are the one with ZERO education.

Then why are you and so many other nut cases responding to my posts?

We're hardly nut cases.

Circular furrows are impossible? And then trying to defend your [lack
of] reasoning on the matter?

---
Yup, I made a mistake and, as I recall, acknowledged it quite some
time ago. If I didn't, then I'll acknowledge it here and now.

Now how about if you acknowledge the impracticability of your electric
tractor scheme?
---

Three months and $100,000 in diesel to plow a field?

As I recall, someone verified that the 1/2 MPH was correct in some
instances.

You need to go back and reread it until you understand it, if that's
possible.
---

I deal with all kinds of people and I've _never_ heard anything that
wacky over such a short period of time.

---
What you think is wacky doesn't matter because you've already amply
demonstrated with that harebrained (charge the batteries in five
minutes)scheme as well as all the rest of your shit that most of what
comes out of you is wacky.
---

Forget about the Pell grant. You'll never get through the math.

---
You seem to have ether conveniently forgotten about a couple of pages
that I posted which proved your hare-brained scheme wouldn't work or
you couldn't understand the math and don't want to embarrass yourself
by acknowledging it.
---

The reason we respond to your posts is that we're trying to make
things better by letting you know that you, and whoever follows you,
are headed for disaster downstream.

Gonna laugh me to death with circular furrows?

---
Nope, actually I think it's kind of sad that you can't take
good-natured advice without feeling so threatened that you have to
lash out with hostility just to feel safe.

Must be a lonely world in there.
---

You wouldn't sue over the IP me if I compiled your attempts to fake
being a techie would you?

---
"over the IP me" ??? What's that about, some more of your fine
English?

Anyway, it doesn't make any difference what you do with my attempts at
having you understand, mathematically, where you went astray, you'll
still have to fake being a techie.
---

Look, everyone agrees we need to get my readership down.

And yet, in the face of that, you keep posting.

If you can't take the heat, go to another thread.

---
Heat?

LOL, you flatter yourself.

As far as leaving goes, I think I'll stay and keep pulling the rug out
from under you, just for grins, for a while yet.
---

Since I'm opposed to censorship my readership cannot be eliminated
altogether

Sure it can.

Just stop posting.

You have two choices:

1. Get ridiculed ever time you try to pretend you know anything about
science or technology, and/or

---
"ever time" ???

You don't know enough about science _or_ technology to come up with
meaningful ridicule, so let's go on to #2...
---

2. Cut/snip tech issues and dodge 'n flame 'n flame 'n dodge.

---
I don't do either, but I do like to troll and flame sometimes
(especially when I meet up with phony-baloney high-and-mighty trash
like you, and it seems I've got you on the end of my line. Just fly
fishing this time though; I didn't think I'd hook anything big and I
was right.
---

The problem isn't that we have nothing to say,

Then why aren't you saying it?

---
Wow! That _is_ a remarkably short attention span.

Clue: the statement was made in the sentence immediately preceding
yours.
---

There's only one answer: Every time you try to comment on tech you
know you'll get ridiculed.

---
Hasn't happened yet, and if you think anything you say is gonna carry
any weight then you really don't understand just how bereft of
technical savvy you be.
---

it's that you think you
_do_.

If you think I'm not saying anything, then you need to take my advice
and go to another thread.

---
I don't _need_ to do anything, especially take self-serving advice
from a lunkhead like you, and if I think you're not saying anything
then it's entirely within my purview to respond in any way I see fit.

Got it?

JF

 

[Bret Cahill]

Oh well, Bret was entertaining for a while but he's bitbin
fodder now.

Does this mean you'll stay on _other_ threads?

After all, we can all see my readership is too large.

Actually, the problem isn't with the readership, it's with the
authorship.

I don't see anyone holding a gun to anyone's head forcing him to read
my posts.

If you think you are wasting your time reading my posts, then the
rational thing to do is to click on another thread.

Anything else is irrational.

But it's easy for me to predict you'll do the irrational thing. Why?

You want to fantasize about having a tech background and I pop that
fantasy every time you are foolish enough to comment on technology.

You have unwittingly revealed you are ignorant of the math necessary
for a tech degree and by your too-clever-by-half word games that you
have never done anything trying to make money in industry.

If you act dumb people will just think you are . . . surprise
surprise . . . dumb.

In fact, you are now scared to death to comment on any tech.

So you have two choices:

1. get your fantasy popped, or,

2. dodge 'n flame 'n flame 'n dodge.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 08:01:14 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

Oh well, Bret was entertaining for a while but he's bitbin
fodder now.

Does this mean you'll stay on _other_ threads?

After all, we can all see my readership is too large.

Actually, the problem isn't with the readership, it's with the
authorship.

I don't see anyone holding a gun to anyone's head forcing him to read
my posts.

---
Good thing, too.

I'm sure there are lots of folks who'd prefer the bullet.
---

If you think you are wasting your time reading my posts, then the
rational thing to do is to click on another thread.

---
Actually, your posts are kind of interesting in that they provide an
insight into the workings of a depraved mind.
---

Anything else is irrational.

But it's easy for me to predict you'll do the irrational thing. Why?

You want to fantasize about having a tech background and I pop that
fantasy every time you are foolish enough to comment on technology.

---
Not a problem, because you probably won't know when I'm talking
technology anyway. Also not a problem because if you somehow
inadvertently come to the realization that I'm talking about
technology you won't understand what I'm talking about anyway.
---

You have unwittingly revealed you are ignorant of the math necessary
for a tech degree and by your too-clever-by-half word games that you
have never done anything trying to make money in industry.

---
Hoo-boy!

Have you ever missed the mark on that one!!!
---

If you act dumb people will just think you are . . . surprise
surprise . . . dumb.

---
Sometimes, though, they'll realize it's just an act.

In your case though, I guess you're just stuck since it's not an act.
---

In fact, you are now scared to death to comment on any tech.

---
Funny, I just posted about 5 articles in the last few days and I
haven't noticed dog tracks headed their way.
---

So you have two choices:

1. get your fantasy popped, or,

2. dodge 'n flame 'n flame 'n dodge.

---
Blow me.


JF

 

On Jul 31, 7:35 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

If home 'n hearthers git pushed too far, are you going to shoot up
more "liberaloons."

You are just dodging the vital economic
issue that is right around the corner.
Current bets are running that there is
a 25% chance of recession, with a
trace of rain. But you want us to return
to the full-fledged late seventies, high-tax
Jimmy Carter lowering of the economic
stagflation boom.

We are a free people, and you can't force
us to kneel down and pray to Paul Ehrlich.

BTW, have you heard that we're in for 30
years of global cooling, according to NASA?
It's already the case that 1998 was the
peak. No year since has beaten that local
maximum. But now that the Pacific Decadal
Oscillation-a large-scale, slow-cycling ocean
pattern- has shifted to its cool phase, we're
going to see how Greenolas face gittin'
pushed too far by empirical results.

 

On Jul 31, 9:32�am, Hammy <spa...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:59:55 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill

BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
Pell Grant and go to college.

Sorry, I don't have time to educate everyone. �You need to focus on
the posts you understand.

Bret Cahill

I think that you have successfully demonstrated your intellectual
superiority. I for one can't explain my confusion with mere words so
this will have to do.

http://i36.tinypic.com/ru4oxl.jpg

This group is for basic Electronic questions so no one here will pose
much of a challenge for you. You should continue this in a more
appropriate group maybe alt.mensa. I'm sure plenty of people there
would love to hear your drivel.

When I pulled 50+ headers for basic I actually thought something
worthwhile was being discussed ,I should know by now it's just another
asshole with to much spare time on his hands.

Another killfilter!

 

[Bret Cahill]

If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
Pell Grant and go to college.

? ?You are the one with ZERO education.

Then why are you and so many other nut cases responding to my posts?

We're hardly nut cases.

Circular furrows are impossible? And then trying to defend your [lack
of] reasoning on the matter?

Yup, I made a mistake

Yea, you made a mistake alright. You tried to fake a tech background.

THAT'S the mistake.

And then you rather stupidly tried to defend your [lack of] reasoning.

and, as I recall, acknowledged it quite some
time ago. If I didn't, then I'll acknowledge it here and now.

Now how about if you acknowledge the impracticability of your electric
tractor scheme?

I never got any serious feedback on why it _wouldn't_ work.

All I got with the continuous operation version was:

"LOL!"

"Cite?"

"Show your calculations."

Three months and $100,000 in diesel to plow a field?

As I recall, someone verified that the 1/2 MPH was correct in some
instances.

In some instances some people don't need a PC.

You think that was a bad invention too?

Face it: your problem is a lack of basic reasoning ability.

Another sure sign you never passed any college level math courses.

Math is applied logic.

You cannot do basic logic.

(charge the batteries in five
minutes)

It's only going to be _discharging_ for 5 minutes. The cells can be
made smaller.

.. . .

Forget about the Pell grant. You'll never get through the math.

You seem to have ether conveniently forgotten about a couple of pages
that I posted

I remember your middle school level math post. It was a pointless as
Al Gore saying, "CO2 is a clear oderless gas . . ."

You discredit yourself trying to present a trivial truth as something
useful.

You don't seem to comprehend that the more you try to impress with
nothing the dumber you look.

.. . .

The reason we respond to your posts is that we're trying to make
things better by letting you know that you, and whoever follows you,
are headed for disaster downstream.

Gonna laugh me to death with circular furrows?

Nope,

Aww, come on.

actually I think it's kind of sad that you can't take
good-natured advice

Like trying to use the 0.5 hp example without posting the diesel
equivalent?

And then when the diesel _is_ calculated then trying to dodge the
issue? And then you ratherly stupidly tried to deny that the cost of
diesel was _the entire_ reason for the original post.

Your basic reasoning ability is compromised.

.. . .

Anyway, it doesn't make any difference what you do with my attempts at
having you understand, mathematically,

It was obvious you didn't have any math background when you kept
trying to use the 0.5 hp example without posting the diesel
equivalent.

That's not a "mistake" in the sense of an honest calculation error.

That's a mistake in getting caught.

.. . .

Look, everyone agrees we need to get my readership down.

And yet, in the face of that, you keep posting.

If you can't take the heat, go to another thread.

Heat?

LOL,

Back to typing "LOL?"

Those are your only two choices?

1. Dodging tech issues

2. Typing "LOL"

you flatter yourself.

You think someone will be impressed with your middle school level math
calculations.

Yer nutz.

As far as leaving goes, I think I'll stay and keep pulling the rug out
from under you, just for grins, for a while yet.

Well we know you cannot comment on tech or you'll just make a fool of
yourself.

So here are your only two choices:

1. Dodging tech issues

2. Typing "LOL"

Since I'm opposed to censorship my readership cannot be eliminated
altogether

Sure it can.

Just stop posting.

You have two choices:

1. Get ridiculed ever time you try to pretend you know anything about
science or technology, and/or

"ever time" ???

Maybe you can get as job as a spell checker. It's obvious you won't
be able to impress anyone with your middle school calculations.

You don't know enough about science _or_ technology to come up with
meaningful ridicule, so let's go on to #2...

Thus spake the circular furrow denier.

2. Cut/snip tech issues and dodge 'n flame 'n flame 'n dodge.

I don't do either,

Post the "LOL" some more.

Face reality:

Here are your only two choices:

1. Dodging tech issues

2. Type "LOL" and dodgin' 'n flamin'

but I do like to troll and flame sometimes

And when you post on tech issues you make a fool of yourself.

So here are your two choices.

1. Dodging tech issues

2. Typing "LOL"

(especially when I meet up with phony-baloney high-and-mighty trash
like you,

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

-- Nietzsche

Like I said you are upset about having your silly self image bubble
burst.

and it seems I've got you on the end of my line. Just fly
fishing this time though; I didn't think I'd hook anything big and I
was right.

It's irrational to click on a post you know will waste your time.

.. . .

There's only one answer: Every time you try to comment on tech you
know you'll get ridiculed.

Hasn't happened yet,

You handed me "circular furrows" on a platter.

There is _no way_ I could improve on that.

.. . .

it's that you think you
_do_.

If you think I'm not saying anything, then you need to take my advice
and go to another thread.

I don't _need_ to do anything,

Then you will either

1. Dodge tech issues (you were never interested in tech any)

or

2. Type "LOL"

especially take self-serving advice
from a lunkhead like you, and if I think you're not saying anything
then it's entirely within my purview to respond in any way I see fit.

Got it?

Don't get mad at me because your middle school level calculations
didn't impress anyone.

Now go back to typing "LOL."

Apparently that's all you can do now.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 11:36:34 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

If you need a formal education, then the proper action is to get a
Pell Grant and go to college.

? ?You are the one with ZERO education.

Then why are you and so many other nut cases responding to my posts?

We're hardly nut cases.

Circular furrows are impossible? And then trying to defend your [lack
of] reasoning on the matter?

Yup, I made a mistake

Yea, you made a mistake alright. You tried to fake a tech background.

THAT'S the mistake.

---
You are quite the rabid dog, aren't you?

Plus, you don't know what you're talking about.

FYI, I've been in business for the last 25 years doing electronic
design for individuals, Fortune 500 companies, and the US government.
I also have a patent and lots and lots of happy customers.

And you?
---

and, as I recall, acknowledged it quite some
time ago. If I didn't, then I'll acknowledge it here and now.

Now how about if you acknowledge the impracticability of your electric
tractor scheme?

I never got any serious feedback on why it _wouldn't_ work.

---
Of course not, since you consider anything that you disagree with as
being "not serious"

Just for starters I can tell you, again, that your harebrained battery
charge/discharge scheme won't work.

Matter of fact, I showed you why it wouldn't work and because you
couldn't work the math or because you're so into believing that
everyone but you is wrong you chose to consider it "not serious".

If you're so sure it'll work why aren't you out getting it done
instead of playing stupid games?
---

All I got with the continuous operation version was:

"LOL!"
---

Because it was ridiculous on the face of it.
---

"Cite?"

---
Because verification of your extravagant claims was necessary.
---

"Show your calculations."

---
Because verification of your extravagant claims was necessary.

Being able to do neither, and thereby _prove_ that your premise wasn't
ridiculous is what's caused those words to stick in your craw.
---

Three months and $100,000 in diesel to plow a field?

As I recall, someone verified that the 1/2 MPH was correct in some
instances.

In some instances some people don't need a PC.

You think that was a bad invention too?

---
Non sequitur
---

Face it: your problem is a lack of basic reasoning ability.

Another sure sign you never passed any college level math courses.

Math is applied logic.

You cannot do basic logic.

---
Dumbass, I make a living doing basic logic.
---

(charge the batteries in five
minutes)

It's only going to be _discharging_ for 5 minutes. The cells can be
made smaller.

---
That's even worse then, since even if you can get them to charge in 1
minute that tractor's going to be idle 20% of the time. Plus, you'll
never get them to charge in 1 minute.
---

Forget about the Pell grant. You'll never get through the math.

You seem to have ether conveniently forgotten about a couple of pages
that I posted

I remember your middle school level math post. It was a pointless as
Al Gore saying, "CO2 is a clear oderless gas . . ."

---
And yet it managed to prove your harebrained scheme wrong
---

You discredit yourself trying to present a trivial truth as something
useful.

---
Quite the opposite, since if something useful can be accomplished by
applying a trivial truth, that's elegant. Not that you'd know
anything about _that_.
---

You don't seem to comprehend that the more you try to impress with
nothing the dumber you look.

---
I think just the opposite is true, in that the more you can accomplish
with the least in, the more impressive the result.
---

The reason we respond to your posts is that we're trying to make
things better by letting you know that you, and whoever follows you,
are headed for disaster downstream.

Gonna laugh me to death with circular furrows?

Nope,

Aww, come on.

actually I think it's kind of sad that you can't take
good-natured advice

Like trying to use the 0.5 hp example without posting the diesel
equivalent?

---
The example was just that; a way to show you how to do your own
calculation. Your inability to take it from there wasn't my fault.
---

And then when the diesel _is_ calculated then trying to dodge the
issue? And then you ratherly stupidly tried to deny that the cost of
diesel was _the entire_ reason for the original post.

Your basic reasoning ability is compromised.

---
I think you have a lot of trouble with reading comprehension.
---

Anyway, it doesn't make any difference what you do with my attempts at
having you understand, mathematically,

It was obvious you didn't have any math background when you kept
trying to use the 0.5 hp example without posting the diesel
equivalent.

---
See above.
---

That's not a "mistake" in the sense of an honest calculation error.

That's a mistake in getting caught.

---
See above
---

Look, everyone agrees we need to get my readership down.

And yet, in the face of that, you keep posting.

If you can't take the heat, go to another thread.

Heat?

LOL,

Back to typing "LOL?"

---
No, still at it when I see something patently ridiculous.
---

Those are your only two choices?

1. Dodging tech issues

2. Typing "LOL"

---
Well, I've certainly taken the tech issues head-on, so that's not a
choice I've taken.

And as for #2, I guess you see a lot of LOLs because so much of what
you write is ridiculous drivel.
---

you flatter yourself.

You think someone will be impressed with your middle school level math
calculations.

---
Nope, I just presented my work so others could check it.

That's what scientists do, but I wouldn't expect you to know anything
about that, either.

Unlike you, who either can't or won't do the work because you're
afraid it might prove your idea(s) to be flawed. And we can't have
that, can we, since finding one chink in your armor would bring the
whole house of cards crashing down.
---

Yer nutz.

---
What about 'em?
---

As far as leaving goes, I think I'll stay and keep pulling the rug out
from under you, just for grins, for a while yet.

Well we know you cannot comment on tech or you'll just make a fool of
yourself.

---
Saying it frequently won't make it any less false.
---

So here are your only two choices:

1. Dodging tech issues

2. Typing "LOL"

---
You're starting to sound like a stuck record.
---

Since I'm opposed to censorship my readership cannot be eliminated
altogether

Sure it can.

Just stop posting.

You have two choices:

1. Get ridiculed ever time you try to pretend you know anything about
science or technology, and/or

"ever time" ???

Maybe you can get as job as a spell checker.

---
Well, at least one of us can.
---

It's obvious you won't
be able to impress anyone with your middle school calculations.

---
What is it with this fixation you have about impressing people?

It's very strange in that you want to impress people with _your_
fictional whiz-bang electric tractor, but _I'm_ not allowed to with a
little algebra?

Is there such a shortage of glory that you want it all, or are you an
attention-starved brat who wants everyone excluded from the limelight
but him?
---

You don't know enough about science _or_ technology to come up with
meaningful ridicule, so let's go on to #2...

Thus spake the circular furrow denier.

---
Denier applies to fibers, not to furrows.

Cite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_textile_measurement#Denier

see how it works?

..
..
..

Snipped a lot of endlessly repetitious blather...


JF

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 16:23:00 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

FYI, I've been in business for the last 25 years doing electronic
design for individuals, Fortune 500 companies, and the US government.
I also have a patent and lots and lots of happy customers.

---
And, I forgot to add, you might want to peruse the pro bono work I've
done on USENET over the last 100 years or so by checking my posting
history.

You know how to do that, don't you?

JF

 

FYI, I've been in business for the last 25 years doing electronic
design for individuals, Fortune 500 companies, and the US government.
I also have a patent and lots and lots of happy customers.

---
And, I forgot to add, you might want to peruse the pro bono work I've
done on USENET

Still trying to justify your existence?

Why not tell your case worker you need to get outdoors and get some
fresh air and eventually larn an honest trade so you won't have to
live off your SSI mental disability?


Bret Cahill