magnetic field

[Brad Velander]

John,
Don't you have the roles reversed here? Was it not JeffM who barged in
chastising and berating a neophyte poster without provocation? If you don't
see it that way then you are as blind as the others. Culture is learned, the
initial poster in question was not given any chance to learn the culture and
was lambasted from their very first post, not once but several times by
JeffM to the very same post.

If you want culture and others to learn or follow that culture you will
find it best to nourish and promote such culture rather than playing God and
decreeing obediance and compliance, essentially casting out the neophytes as
unclean or misfit undesireables. Your approach seems quite different from
JeffM's and is much more appropriate. My fight is not with your desire for a
culture but with JeffM's irrational antagonistic approach that tells people
they are unfit idiots before they have been given a chance to learn or
develop their own appreciation for the existing culture. He then posts links
to his own posts describing such rules or conduct as if he is God almighty.
My fight with JeffM's rule is that they are only his personal rules and they
are not official nor sanctioned. He is arrogant and obviously a megalomaniac
that feels he somehow rules the group and everyone should follow his rules
or leave. Sorry, nobody rules, especially megalomaniacs like JeffM. That is
one of the founding principles of Usenet and you as Americans should respect
that and the fact that everyone posting on Usenet is neither from a similar
culture nor background of knowledge and capabilities. Hell, what is Jeff
going to do if someone starts posting in Asian scripts like one of the other
groups I read? Berate them as idiots as well, demand that they post in
romanized scripts only?

If you could develop and somehow introduce it to new subscribers to the
group to these cultural norms or desires that would be great. However, it is
still not rules, compliance is still not required and nobody should be
berated over non-compliance. As a free and open service, if you don't like
something you have two choices, unsubscribe or apply your filters. Those are
your only two guaranteed or protected options, you have no right to berate
others.

New subscribers are only introduced to the Usenet FAQs and most probably
do not read them. However, if they did read them they would not find mention
of any rules and only explanations of how there are no rules, no enforcement
and no supervision. Then they run headlong into idiots like JeffM demanding
their obediance and berating them as idiots. Sorry, it is those who think
they are Kings that are infact the idiots.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:6nid12pp9mc84ve85qg57mlbc4hparsbl1@4ax.com...

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 03:12:08 GMT, "Brad Velander"
bveland@SpamThis.com> wrote:

You know what, I really don't get where all of you idiots start making up
your own rules and telling others that they have follow them? Have you
actually read the Usenet FAQs? Seemingly not because they refer
specifically
to the behavoir that you are demonstrating and they directly refute your
"rules". There are no rules, get it idiot? So take the gist of people's
posts and reply to them or not, at your discretion. Don't try imposing
your
rules where they don't belong and requested.

As for your comment about multi-posting, sure I agree it is legitimate
in some cases. However there are too many alter-trolls out there that will
also complain about that, seen it often enough. So where does that leave
the
less initiated, at the mercy of the whole lot of you that make up your own
rules and try shoving them down everyone's throats.

---
All newsgroups evolve and develop a culture which suits most of the
"members" of the various groups.

On the sci.electronics.* groups and on
alt.binaries.schematics.electronic we have evolved to the point
where most of us who have been here for a while generally bottom
post, in-line post where it's appropriate, trim prior posts for
context in replies, and crosspost instead of multi-posting since
that makes life easy for all of us.

It works for us, and when anyone posts here and obviously hasn't
taken the time to learn the culture before barging in with a badly
malformed reply to a post, they're usually told, gently at first,
what the customs are here.

Then there are always the antagonistic types, like you, who come
barreling in here and, with their first or second post, try to upset
things by proclaiming that there should be no rules here. The
laughable part of that is that you want _that_ to be the rule, LOL,
and that everyone should kow-tow to your desires. Can you
understand how idiotic that is and what an untenable position it
puts you in?

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[JeffM]

the initial poster...was not given any chance to learn the culture
Brad Velander (still clueless)

You are a fool.
Showing someone how to do something properly
is not "chastising and berating". It was YOU I berated
after you stated that anarchy is an acceptable norm.
(Fields' description is apt; yours is deviant.)
I pity any children who depend on your guidance.
ISTM you won't give them any
because in your fantasy world that might damage them.

I provided links that talked about lurking.
I also made the parallel to meatspace
where you OBSERVE first. *then* start participating.

My impression of you
is that you ignore how things are done wherever you go
and just make it up as you go along,
expecting people to conform to you (the newbie).

 

[Tomi Holger Engdahl]

dkcombs@panix.com (David Combs) writes:

In article <Xns9776C01FBED6Creyuhdfghdfy@130.133.1.4>,
Joe Soap <me@privacy.net> wrote:
In response to what <cs_posting@hotmail.com> posted in
news:1140978884.155392.113690@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

Well, if you had a fast scope, and a pulse generator, and pulled the
end out of the breaker box and drove it like an RF transmission line,
you might learn something by plugging a simple "nightlight" load into
each outlet while watching the scope.

Or maybe use a Time Domain Reflectometer.

And just what is that, and what does it do?

From http://www.epanorama.net/links/measuring.html#line

Time Domain Reflectometry measurements (sometimes called Time Domain
Spectroscopy techniques) work by injecting a short duration fast rise
time pulse into the cable under test. The effect on the cable is
measured with an oscilloscope. The injected pulse radiates down the
cable and at the point where the cable ends some portion of the signal
pulse is reflected back to the injection point. The amount of the
reflected energy is a function of the condition at the end of the
cable. If the cable is in an open condition the energy pulse reflected
back is a significant portion of the injected signal in the same
polarity as the injected pulse. If the end of the cable is shorted to
ground or to the return cable, the energy reflected is in the opposite
polarity to the injected signal. If the end of the cable is terminated
into a resistor with a value matching the characteristic impedance of
the cable, all of the injected energy will be absorbed by the
terminating resistor and no reflection will be generated. Should the
cable be terminated by some value different from the characteristic
impedance of the cable the amount of energy reflected back to the
cable start point would be the portion of the pulse not absorbed by
the termination. Also any change in the cable impedance due to a
connection, major kink or other problem will generate a reflection in
addition to the reflection from the end of the cable. By timing the
delay between the original pulse and the reflection it is possible to
discern the point on the cable length where an anomaly exists. The
cable type governs this signal propagation speed. For example normal
Category 5 cable propagation speed is 66% the speed of light, and for
most coaxial cables this value is between 66% and 86%.


One circuit example for TDR signal generator:
http://www.epanorama.net/circuits/tdr.html


--
Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then/)
Take a look at my electronics web links and documents at
http://www.epanorama.net/

 

[John Fields]

On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 07:28:12 GMT, "Brad Velander"
<bveland@SpamThis.com> wrote:

John,
Don't you have the roles reversed here?

---
No.
---

Was it not JeffM who barged in
chastising and berating a neophyte poster without provocation?

---
While JeffM may have been abrasive, he at least provided links to
"netiquette".
---

If you don't see it that way then you are as blind as the others.

---
What you really mean is If I don't see it _your_ way...

The dichotomy there lies in that your reponse to Jeffm's response,
which you say you found distasteful, was much harsher than his.
Therefore, if I was to see it _your_ way, I'd have to respond to you
even more harshly and, reducto ad absurdium, things would eventually
escalate to the point where one of us would have to die.
---

Culture is learned, the
initial poster in question was not given any chance to learn the culture and
was lambasted from their very first post, not once but several times by
JeffM to the very same post.

---
Again, while Jeffm may have been abrasive, I'd hardly go as far as
calling it 'lambasting', but YMMV.
---

If you want culture and others to learn or follow that culture you will
find it best to nourish and promote such culture rather than playing God and
decreeing obediance and compliance, essentially casting out the neophytes as
unclean or misfit undesireables.

---
First of all, I don't think I said I _wanted_ culture, I said that
cultures evolve which provide a best fit for most of the members of
that society. Or the strongest members of that society. Or
whatever. The point was, and is, that any viable culture has rules
to which its members adhere, knowingly or not, which promote the
survival of the culture.
---

Your approach seems quite different from JeffM's and is much more appropriate.
My fight is not with your desire for a culture

---
Again, I have no particlar 'desire' for a culture, but since I find
myself attracted to and involved in this one I generally try to
behave in a way which will make me welcome here.
---

but with JeffM's irrational antagonistic approach that tells people
they are unfit idiots before they have been given a chance to learn or
develop their own appreciation for the existing culture.

---
But Jeffm _is_ part of the culture!

Like it or not, we all have our own personalities and, as you've
noted, the right to post whatever pleases us. If he decides to jump
down some newbie's throat, then he has as much right to do that as
you have to jump down his throat for doing it, and I have just as
much of a right to tell you that you shouldn't be doing that, and on
and on, ad nauseam.
---

He then posts links
to his own posts describing such rules or conduct as if he is God almighty.
My fight with JeffM's rule is that they are only his personal rules and they
are not official nor sanctioned. He is arrogant and obviously a megalomaniac
that feels he somehow rules the group and everyone should follow his rules
or leave. Sorry, nobody rules, especially megalomaniacs like JeffM.

---
Nobody rules, but there _are_ rules, and how they get pointed out to
newbies is largely depedent on who's doing the pointing out and on
newbie attitude.

Case in point, my last post in this thread indicated to you that, in
the sci.electronics.* newsgroups, top posting is considered to be
poor form, yet in your reply you chose to top post. Why would you
do that when you know that's what we're comfortable with here and
you've been told that's what we like?
---

That is
one of the founding principles of Usenet and you as Americans should respect
that and the fact that everyone posting on Usenet is neither from a similar
culture nor background of knowledge and capabilities. Hell, what is Jeff
going to do if someone starts posting in Asian scripts like one of the other
groups I read? Berate them as idiots as well, demand that they post in
romanized scripts only?

---
If they're posting inappropriately, why not? Again, no rules is
your rule, so how can you, without being hypocritical, chastise him
for posting whatever he wants to?
---

If you could develop and somehow introduce it to new subscribers to the
group to these cultural norms or desires that would be great. However, it is
still not rules, compliance is still not required and nobody should be
berated over non-compliance. As a free and open service, if you don't like
something you have two choices, unsubscribe or apply your filters. Those are
your only two guaranteed or protected options, you have no right to berate
others.

---
On the one hand you say there should be no rules, but on the other
you say that no one has the right to berate anyone else. If there
are no rules, then those two statements are contradictory and your
logic makes no sense other than, perhaps if you want to be the one
making the rules.
---

New subscribers are only introduced to the Usenet FAQs and most probably
do not read them. However, if they did read them they would not find mention
of any rules and only explanations of how there are no rules, no enforcement
and no supervision. Then they run headlong into idiots like JeffM demanding
their obediance and berating them as idiots. Sorry, it is those who think
they are Kings that are infact the idiots.

---
Yes, your Majesty.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Brad Velander]

John,
You had better go back and reread the thread, you are profoundly
confused. My post was calm and civilized until JeffM cranked up the level
with: "You don't get it either, stupid." or "EAT SHIT AND DIE. Apologists
for idiots are even worse than the idiots." in his post on March 5th. So who
responded in a manner "more harshly and, reducto ad absurdium". Get your
facts straight John, don't just rely on your obviously skewed perception of
the events. It is all archived on Google if you don't doubt my version.

As for your original comments that i had originally chosen to ignore:
"Then there are always the antagonistic types, like you, who come barreling
in here and, with their first or second post, try to upset things by
proclaiming that there should be no rules here." Again John check your
facts! I have been participating in sci.electronics.cad for close to a
decade now. So kindly stop your erroneous assertions, or is that an accepted
cultural norm as well? As for "proclaiming that there should be no rules
here"? No proclomation needed, from day one there have been no rules, I have
simply stated a fact as it applies to Usenet posting rules.

The rest of your post nicely circles around and around but what is it
that you are saying. You post to be accepted, others should adapt the same
culture as you find acceptable, they should agree with your accepted norms.
There is one very huge message that you are conveying John, intolerance for
anything other than your personal accepted norm. Is that what you wanted to
say John because it is coming through very loud and clear that is your
message? As it was with JeffM.

Your post is very nicely attempting to twist things around. I did not
chastise JeffM for posting what he felt, I pointed out that "Nobody elected
you (him) to police Usenet and direct everyone as to how to use it." Now is
there any misinformation or erroneous facts in that statement? I chastised
him for pretending that his/your culture were sanctioned rules or
requirements and that his links to his other personal posts (across various
groups) were unofficial and nothing more than personal rules (you prefer the
word culture, there's no difference in this case). Actually I had to laugh
hysterically at JeffM's links, most were not in the newsgroup that held the
original post, so I guess the neophyte poster was supposed to know to search
those other forums for these cultural rules before posting in this forum or
that forum. How long is the accpet norm for cultural study of a group
before venturing out to post yoru first message? How many or how far back in
archived messages are you to search through trying to find some unofficial
norms so that you don't piss off some uptight jerks? Isd it required that
you know there are archived messages before you venture onto Usenet? LMFHO

I also find it hilarious that the whole group of you have adapted this
view that I promote anarchy. What a bunch of lame phobics! Did I ever use
the word anarchy, seems it must be some shared phobia for you and your
group? Do you even understand true anarchy or just the typical phobic view
of anarchy. Which is typically the same view shared with those anti-social
youth who claim to be anarchists or to believe in anarchy but really don't
know shit about anarchy. However, if both sides believe it then it must be
true anarchy even if they are both sadly misinformed and missing the true
realization of anarchy.

If you had any interest in what my view actually was then you would have
found it in my posts or you should have asked before wildly applying labels.
But no, what do you and your co-conspirators do, attach a flashy phobic
label to me. Read my recent posts and see if you can discover what I really
believe or said as it would relate to posting on Usenet. I believe it was in
a reply to JeffM but was posted to just one group (sci.electronics.cad) as
the original post was.

You are more comfortable with bottom posting, I am not. So you are
saying that you are right and I am wrong. So does posting outside of your
cultural rules make posts less intelligent or less knowledgeable than you or
JeffM? Does it make their enquiry or contribution less worthy of inclusion?
No it doesn't, so what is your really point or issue John? Again I would
simply suggest that it seems you are intolerant, rather than cultured.
Tricky word culture, it has all sorts of various connotations, it is clear
yours is very closed and limited.

As I said, you have the choice to contribute or ignore posts/posters.
That is the extent to which you can claim any control over the posters or
their posting style/format to these or other Usenet groups. If you exercise
that choice properly then there is no anarchy, so all of you phobics fearful
of anarchy can sleeep easier if you follow those two simple options.

--
Sincerely,
Brad Velander.

 

[Don Lancaster]

Brad Velander wrote:

John,
You had better go back and reread the thread, you are profoundly
confused. My post was calm and civilized until JeffM cranked up the level
with: "You don't get it either, stupid." or "EAT SHIT AND DIE. Apologists
for idiots are even worse than the idiots." in his post on March 5th. So who
responded in a manner "more harshly and, reducto ad absurdium". Get your
facts straight John, don't just rely on your obviously skewed perception of
the events. It is all archived on Google if you don't doubt my version.

As for your original comments that i had originally chosen to ignore:
"Then there are always the antagonistic types, like you, who come barreling
in here and, with their first or second post, try to upset things by
proclaiming that there should be no rules here." Again John check your
facts! I have been participating in sci.electronics.cad for close to a
decade now. So kindly stop your erroneous assertions, or is that an accepted
cultural norm as well? As for "proclaiming that there should be no rules
here"? No proclomation needed, from day one there have been no rules, I have
simply stated a fact as it applies to Usenet posting rules.

The rest of your post nicely circles around and around but what is it
that you are saying. You post to be accepted, others should adapt the same
culture as you find acceptable, they should agree with your accepted norms.
There is one very huge message that you are conveying John, intolerance for
anything other than your personal accepted norm. Is that what you wanted to
say John because it is coming through very loud and clear that is your
message? As it was with JeffM.

Your post is very nicely attempting to twist things around. I did not
chastise JeffM for posting what he felt, I pointed out that "Nobody elected
you (him) to police Usenet and direct everyone as to how to use it." Now is
there any misinformation or erroneous facts in that statement? I chastised
him for pretending that his/your culture were sanctioned rules or
requirements and that his links to his other personal posts (across various
groups) were unofficial and nothing more than personal rules (you prefer the
word culture, there's no difference in this case). Actually I had to laugh
hysterically at JeffM's links, most were not in the newsgroup that held the
original post, so I guess the neophyte poster was supposed to know to search
those other forums for these cultural rules before posting in this forum or
that forum. How long is the accpet norm for cultural study of a group
before venturing out to post yoru first message? How many or how far back in
archived messages are you to search through trying to find some unofficial
norms so that you don't piss off some uptight jerks? Isd it required that
you know there are archived messages before you venture onto Usenet? LMFHO

I also find it hilarious that the whole group of you have adapted this
view that I promote anarchy. What a bunch of lame phobics! Did I ever use
the word anarchy, seems it must be some shared phobia for you and your
group? Do you even understand true anarchy or just the typical phobic view
of anarchy. Which is typically the same view shared with those anti-social
youth who claim to be anarchists or to believe in anarchy but really don't
know shit about anarchy. However, if both sides believe it then it must be
true anarchy even if they are both sadly misinformed and missing the true
realization of anarchy.

If you had any interest in what my view actually was then you would have
found it in my posts or you should have asked before wildly applying labels.
But no, what do you and your co-conspirators do, attach a flashy phobic
label to me. Read my recent posts and see if you can discover what I really
believe or said as it would relate to posting on Usenet. I believe it was in
a reply to JeffM but was posted to just one group (sci.electronics.cad) as
the original post was.

You are more comfortable with bottom posting, I am not. So you are
saying that you are right and I am wrong. So does posting outside of your
cultural rules make posts less intelligent or less knowledgeable than you or
JeffM? Does it make their enquiry or contribution less worthy of inclusion?
No it doesn't, so what is your really point or issue John? Again I would
simply suggest that it seems you are intolerant, rather than cultured.
Tricky word culture, it has all sorts of various connotations, it is clear
yours is very closed and limited.

As I said, you have the choice to contribute or ignore posts/posters.
That is the extent to which you can claim any control over the posters or
their posting style/format to these or other Usenet groups. If you exercise
that choice properly then there is no anarchy, so all of you phobics fearful
of anarchy can sleeep easier if you follow those two simple options.

Could you please elaborate further on the above?

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com

 

[John Fields]

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:22:08 GMT, "Brad Velander"
<bveland@SpamThis.com> wrote:

John,
You had better go back and reread the thread, you are profoundly
confused. My post was calm and civilized until JeffM cranked up the level
with: "You don't get it either, stupid." or "EAT SHIT AND DIE. Apologists
for idiots are even worse than the idiots." in his post on March 5th. So who
responded in a manner "more harshly and, reducto ad absurdium". Get your
facts straight John, don't just rely on your obviously skewed perception of
the events. It is all archived on Google if you don't doubt my version.

---
If I don't doubt your version why should I check the archives?
---

As for your original comments that i had originally chosen to ignore:
"Then there are always the antagonistic types, like you, who come barreling
in here and, with their first or second post, try to upset things by
proclaiming that there should be no rules here." Again John check your
facts! I have been participating in sci.electronics.cad for close to a
decade now.

---
I read your posts on sed, where there were only two over the last
week and none prior, so without your stating where you were posting
from (or my searching _all_ the groups you crossposted to for your
posting history you came through like a newbie on sed. Still do.
---

So kindly stop your erroneous assertions, or is that an accepted
cultural norm as well? As for "proclaiming that there should be no rules
here"? No proclomation needed, from day one there have been no rules, I have
simply stated a fact as it applies to Usenet posting rules.

---
You need to Google "netiquette" and read up on it a little before
you start issuing edicts,
---

The rest of your post nicely circles around and around but what is it
that you are saying. You post to be accepted, others should adapt the same
culture as you find acceptable, they should agree with your accepted norms.
There is one very huge message that you are conveying John, intolerance for
anything other than your personal accepted norm. Is that what you wanted to
say John because it is coming through very loud and clear that is your
message? As it was with JeffM.

---
Not at all. What I was saying was: "When in Rome, do as the Romans
do," What you seem to be saying is: "When in Rome, do as you damned
well please and to Hell with the Romans."
---

Your post is very nicely attempting to twist things around. I did not
chastise JeffM for posting what he felt, I pointed out that "Nobody elected
you (him) to police Usenet and direct everyone as to how to use it." Now is
there any misinformation or erroneous facts in that statement?

---
Yes. While no one elected him to police USENET, there are
guidelines in existence on how to use it, and I believe that's where
some of his links pointed. I could as easily direct you to Google
and suggest you search for "netiquette" in order to find out for
yourself what those guidelines are.
---

I chastised
him for pretending that his/your culture were sanctioned rules or
requirements and that his links to his other personal posts (across various
groups) were unofficial and nothing more than personal rules (you prefer the
word culture, there's no difference in this case).

---
Yes, there's quite a difference since I'm using 'culture' in a
different sense.
---

Actually I had to laugh
hysterically at JeffM's links, most were not in the newsgroup that held the
original post, so I guess the neophyte poster was supposed to know to search
those other forums for these cultural rules before posting in this forum or
that forum. How long is the accpet norm for cultural study of a group
before venturing out to post yoru first message?

---
Until you can feel confident that you won't offend, if that's your
goal. For instance, what were you thinking when you started reading
the riot act to Jeffm on sed with _one_ post under your belt there?
You obviously gave it no thought and that's why the thread has
continued in this direction.
---

How many or how far back in
archived messages are you to search through trying to find some unofficial
norms so that you don't piss off some uptight jerks?

---
If you use consideration and politeness, then I'd say that lurk time
can be reduced to nearly zero. Of course there are some folks that
can't be pleased no matter what, and as soon as you post _anything_
they'll come out of the woodwork looking for their fair share of
abuse.
---

Isd it required that
you know there are archived messages before you venture onto Usenet? LMFHO

---
No, but it would be prudent to at least get the lay of the land
before you venture into otherwisde unknown territory.
---

I also find it hilarious that the whole group of you have adapted this
view that I promote anarchy.

---
'Adopted', not 'adapted'.
---

What a bunch of lame phobics! Did I ever use
the word anarchy, seems it must be some shared phobia for you and your
group? Do you even understand true anarchy or just the typical phobic view
of anarchy. Which is typically the same view shared with those anti-social
youth who claim to be anarchists or to believe in anarchy but really don't
know shit about anarchy. However, if both sides believe it then it must be
true anarchy even if they are both sadly misinformed and missing the true
realization of anarchy.

---
No one accused you of anarchistic behavior; it was more like
anti-social behavior was what was being talked about, where you
stated that you wanted to do what you wanted to do, no matter what
the customs were where you wanted to do it.
---

If you had any interest in what my view actually was then you would have
found it in my posts or you should have asked before wildly applying labels.

---
But I don't, so I didn't. Nor did I need to. Your "view" is
blatantly obvious and is predicated on your belief that you should
be able to do whatever you please, whenever you please, without
regard for anyone else.
---

So who's being
paranoid/phobic
now? LOL!
--- /

But no, what do you and your co-conspirators do, attach a flashy phobic
label to me. Read my recent posts and see if you can discover what I really
believe or said as it would relate to posting on Usenet. I believe it was in
a reply to JeffM but was posted to just one group (sci.electronics.cad) as
the original post was.

---
Why bother? Your views are banal and abundantly clear from what
you've posted in the last few days.
---

You are more comfortable with bottom posting, I am not. So you are
saying that you are right and I am wrong. So does posting outside of your
cultural rules make posts less intelligent or less knowledgeable than you or
JeffM?

---
Yes.
---

Does it make their enquiry or contribution less worthy of inclusion?

---
Yes
---

No it doesn't, so what is your really point or issue John? Again I would
simply suggest that it seems you are intolerant, rather than cultured.

---
LOL, I never said I was cultured, I said I was attracted to the
culture of sci.electronics.design here on USENET.
---

Tricky word culture, it has all sorts of various connotations, it is clear
yours is very closed and limited.

---
Well, with your seeming inability to derive meaning from context, I
can see why you'd think that.

I suggest you get yourself a good dictionary and spend a while
getting 'culture' down.
---

As I said, you have the choice to contribute or ignore posts/posters.
That is the extent to which you can claim any control over the posters or
their posting style/format to these or other Usenet groups.

---
Not true. I can also explain to posters that their posting
mechanics are inappropriate for the group to which they're posting.

I often do that with newbies from Google groups who post without
using context by including this message from Google in my reply to
their post:

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."

I've been thanked on more than one occasion for posting that.

In case you have trobling deciphering the message, Google is
suggesting that trimming the post which is being replied to and
_bottom posting_ are the preferred methods of replying to posts.

This method is considered to be in good form, I believe, throughout
most of USENET, so your refusal to accept those guidelines brands
you as, at best, beliggerent and unwilling to take correction and,
at worst, well... let's see where this leads.
---

If you exercise
that choice properly then there is no anarchy, so all of you phobics fearful
of anarchy can sleeep easier if you follow those two simple options.

---
Just because you're incapable of seeing more than two options, why
should we bound by _your_ limitations?


--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[JeffM]

No one accused you of anarchistic behavior
John Fields

Correction: That WAS the term *I* used to describe his
**We don't need no stinkin' guidelines** attitude.

 

[John Fields]

On 17 Mar 2006 10:38:51 -0800, "JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote:

No one accused you of anarchistic behavior
John Fields

Correction: That WAS the term *I* used to describe his
**We don't need no stinkin' guidelines** attitude.

---
OK, correction accepted.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Brad Velander]

John,
You know what, John? You are adequately showing your own stupidity when
you continually credit me with statements or beliefs that I have never
stated nor suggested. Everyone of your posts have been filled with them,
seems someone's culture is getting the best of you because you are wrongly
applying others comments or opinions. Seems everyone else is responsible for
postings but you can just assume that you read the message in sed so that is
the whole world, regardless of whether there are 100 group addresses in the
headers. Seems you simply accepted others comments but now regurgitate them
credited to me. Sorry I don't have time to discuss this with such stupid
people that can't even keep facts separated from their personal
fantasies/desires.

Adios, tiron intolerante.

Brad Velander.



"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:higl12hucuhp7mcs0j5k071f99ianbq0p6@4ax.com...

On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:22:08 GMT, "Brad Velander"
bveland@SpamThis.com> wrote:

---
I read your posts on sed, where there were only two over the last
week and none prior, so without your stating where you were posting
from (or my searching _all_ the groups you crossposted to for your
posting history you came through like a newbie on sed. Still do.
---

So you are also so going to feign ignorance of google's user profiles? Oops,
sorry it is the other person's responsibility to announce for JOHN FEILD's
benefit that I am posting from group XYZ. Where is your knowledge and
culture on this one, I had not seen you announce that you were posting from
group ABC. So this is only my problem, I did not state from which group I
was posting, doesn't apply for others and especially not for John!
Hypocrite!

So kindly stop your erroneous assertions, or is that an accepted
cultural norm as well? As for "proclaiming that there should be no rules
here"? No proclomation needed, from day one there have been no rules, I
have
simply stated a fact as it applies to Usenet posting rules.

---
You need to Google "netiquette" and read up on it a little before
you start issuing edicts,
---

Edict? Naw that is too complicated John, have you ever heard of facts? Seems
not because you don't even recognize one when you see one.

---
Not at all. What I was saying was: "When in Rome, do as the Romans
do," What you seem to be saying is: "When in Rome, do as you damned
well please and to Hell with the Romans."
---

I guess you are the eternal kid that was going to jump off the cliff
because someone else did as well.

Your post is very nicely attempting to twist things around. I did not
chastise JeffM for posting what he felt, I pointed out that "Nobody
elected
you (him) to police Usenet and direct everyone as to how to use it." Now
is
there any misinformation or erroneous facts in that statement?

---
Yes.

Liar!

While no one elected him to police USENET, there are

guidelines in existence on how to use it, and I believe that's where
some of his links pointed.

Thank you for just refuting your own "Yes" and confirming my statement as
factual. You don't get to stretch or embellish your understanding of what i
wrote, you just confirmed precisely what I wrote, no more no less. JeffM was
not elected to police Usenet.

---
Until you can feel confident that you won't offend, if that's your
goal. For instance, what were you thinking when you started reading
the riot act to Jeffm on sed with _one_ post under your belt there?
You obviously gave it no thought and that's why the thread has
continued in this direction.

Again I am guilty and JeffM is innocent! You are absolutely blind aren't
you!

How many or how far back in
archived messages are you to search through trying to find some unofficial
norms so that you don't piss off some uptight jerks?

---
If you use consideration and politeness, then I'd say that lurk time
can be reduced to nearly zero. Of course there are some folks that
can't be pleased no matter what, and as soon as you post _anything_
they'll come out of the woodwork looking for their fair share of
abuse.

Wow, I didn't know that you were going to criticize JeffM, especially
when you describe his actions and style perfectly..

No one accused you of anarchistic behavior; it was more like
anti-social behavior was what was being talked about, where you
stated that you wanted to do what you wanted to do, no matter what
the customs were where you wanted to do it.

John, you had better recheck your facts buddy, anarchy, anarchist,
promoting anarchy are all terms used thus far. So are you just proving your
own stupidity again? Why don't you contain your comments to items which you
can accurately discuss. It wasn't only JeffM either, several other posters
as well but I didn't bother to check which groups they were posting from. So
it was not so easily missed if you actually read the content of the thread
before making up more lies.

If you had any interest in what my view actually was then you would
have
found it in my posts or you should have asked before wildly applying
labels.

---
But I don't, so I didn't. Nor did I need to. Your "view" is
blatantly obvious and is predicated on your belief that you should
be able to do whatever you please, whenever you please, without
regard for anyone else.
---

Wrong John. You are so simply forgetting what started the thread. An
"abrasive" overzealous wannabe Usent cop named JeffM behaving badly,
berating other's posts and just generally being rude all in the name of
these are the rules.

So who's being
paranoid/phobic
now? LOL!

I don't know, John Field/JeffM/others that insist on these rules and
attack those who suggest their rules are crap?

You are more comfortable with bottom posting, I am not. So you are
saying that you are right and I am wrong. So does posting outside of your
cultural rules make posts less intelligent or less knowledgeable than you
or
JeffM?

---
Yes.

I forgot, intelligence has more than 2 syllables. Sorry to have posed a
question that went right over your head John.

I often do that with newbies from Google groups who post without
using context by including this message from Google in my reply to
their post:

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."

Yes, so you are suggesting that others follow standards that you do not
even follow? Your posts have not been as so described, you use this
interspersed method of quoting and replying. So contrary words and actions
again. I have seen many times that people refer to bottom posting and there
being logic behind it. Right off the bat I see one glaring logic flaw. It is
typically not possible to quickly preview the message for the new content,
typically you will only see the quoted text from the previous post, where is
the logic in that? It is completely illogical to have to scroll through the
previous message (again) to get to the post's new content or contribution.
Do you put bibiographies, references and footnotes at the beginning of
books?

 

[JeffM]

intelligence has more than 2 syllables
Brad Velander.

So does *stubbornness*
--but that doesn't mean that if you posess the latter you also have the
former.

 

[John Fields]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:06:18 GMT, "Brad Velander"
<bveland@SpamThis.com> wrote:

John,
You know what, John? You are adequately showing your own stupidity when
you continually credit me with statements or beliefs that I have never
stated nor suggested.

---
I think what I've been doing all along is referring to (or rather,
pointing out) your self-centered bullheadedness in refusing to post
in ways which are considered to be universally acceptable and, to a
lesser extent, the motivation for that type of behavior.
---

Everyone of your posts have been filled with them,
seems someone's culture is getting the best of you because you are wrongly
applying others comments or opinions. Seems everyone else is responsible for
postings but you can just assume that you read the message in sed so that is
the whole world, regardless of whether there are 100 group addresses in the
headers.

---
Now you're showing your ignorance of one of the technical aspects of
posting to USENET.

If you write a malformed post and send it 100 groups by crossposting
it, and I read it in sed, it will be be just as malformed in all the
other groups you crossposted it to.
---

Seems you simply accepted others comments but now regurgitate them
credited to me. Sorry I don't have time to discuss this with such stupid
people that can't even keep facts separated from their personal
fantasies/desires.

---
LOL, what you're saying is you're out of ammo, but you want to duck
out by saving face with that last little flamelet.

OK, you're dismissed.
---

Adios, tiron intolerante.

---
Adios? No. Hasta la proxima vez, pendejita.
---

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:higl12hucuhp7mcs0j5k071f99ianbq0p6@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 07:22:08 GMT, "Brad Velander"
bveland@SpamThis.com> wrote:

---
I read your posts on sed, where there were only two over the last
week and none prior, so without your stating where you were posting
from (or my searching _all_ the groups you crossposted to for your
posting history you came through like a newbie on sed. Still do.
---

So you are also so going to feign ignorance of google's user profiles?

---
Feign? Not at all. I _am_, in fact, ignorant of Google's user
profiles. I don't access Usenet through Google, but through
Giganews' servers and only use Google for searching their USENET
archives and for Googling and Google Earthing, of course.
---

Oops,
sorry it is the other person's responsibility to announce for JOHN FEILD's
benefit that I am posting from group XYZ.

---
The thing that you don't seem to understand is that it doesn't
really matter to me what group you were, or are, posting from, I
responded to the posts which landed on sed and I replied to them
from there.
---

Where is your knowledge and
culture on this one, I had not seen you announce that you were posting from
group ABC.

---
Nor had I intended to, until the issue came up, since that's usually
of no concern in a normal discussion.
---

So this is only my problem, I did not state from which group I
was posting, doesn't apply for others and especially not for John!
Hypocrite!

---
If that were your _only_ problem, we could clear it up quickly by
stating that it's hardly hypocritical since, in a normal
discussion, the group the poster is posting from is immaterial and
what _does_ matter is the form and content of the post.

But it's certainly _not_ your only problem, as evidenced by your
antisocial stance so far.
---

---
You need to Google "netiquette" and read up on it a little before
you start issuing edicts,
---

Edict? Naw that is too complicated John,

---
OK, I'll use simpler words next time.
---

have you ever heard of facts? Seems not because you don't even recognize
one when you see one.

---
Now, now... be careful.

That's the kind of sloppy logic which can lead to your ears getting
pinned back even further.
---

---
Not at all. What I was saying was: "When in Rome, do as the Romans
do," What you seem to be saying is: "When in Rome, do as you damned
well please and to Hell with the Romans."
---

I guess you are the eternal kid that was going to jump off the cliff
because someone else did as well.

---
That's just dopey, but it does provide some insight into the problem
that you're having with top posting in terms of the flight of the
arrow of time.

Consider your use of: "as well", above.

The correct usage would be: "Brad jumped off the cliff and then John
did, as well.", but you've got the cart before the horse with what
amounts to: "Brad jumped of the cliff as well, and then John did."

Can you see the temporal conflict there and how it relates to your
wanting to place the answer prior to the question, so to speak?

And what do you mean by "the eternal kid"?
---

Your post is very nicely attempting to twist things around. I did not
chastise JeffM for posting what he felt, I pointed out that "Nobody
elected
you (him) to police Usenet and direct everyone as to how to use it." Now
is
there any misinformation or erroneous facts in that statement?

---
Yes.

Liar!

While no one elected him to police USENET, there are
guidelines in existence on how to use it, and I believe that's where
some of his links pointed.

Thank you for just refuting your own "Yes" and confirming my statement as
factual. You don't get to stretch or embellish your understanding of what i
wrote, you just confirmed precisely what I wrote, no more no less. JeffM was
not elected to police Usenet.

---
Got your attention, huh?

If a liar refutes his lie before someone else does does that leave
him a liar? Nope, dope.

The point is, and was, that guidelines for netiquette exist and that
some of his links pointed to those guidelines.
---

---
Until you can feel confident that you won't offend, if that's your
goal. For instance, what were you thinking when you started reading
the riot act to Jeffm on sed with _one_ post under your belt there?
You obviously gave it no thought and that's why the thread has
continued in this direction.

Again I am guilty and JeffM is innocent! You are absolutely blind aren't
you!

---
Absolutely not.

Jeff was guilty about being abusive, but he tempered that by
offering information supporting his viewpoint.

You, on the other hand, are not only guilty of being abusive, you've
offered nothing other than your own narcissistic view of why you're
right and everyone else is wrong.
---

How many or how far back in
archived messages are you to search through trying to find some unofficial
norms so that you don't piss off some uptight jerks?

---
If you use consideration and politeness, then I'd say that lurk time
can be reduced to nearly zero. Of course there are some folks that
can't be pleased no matter what, and as soon as you post _anything_
they'll come out of the woodwork looking for their fair share of
abuse.

Wow, I didn't know that you were going to criticize JeffM, especially
when you describe his actions and style perfectly..

---
You know very well I was referring to you, and your attempt to try
to shift the focus from you to JeffM is a typically sophomoric
trick. Just what I'd expect from someone like you.
---

No one accused you of anarchistic behavior; it was more like
anti-social behavior was what was being talked about, where you
stated that you wanted to do what you wanted to do, no matter what
the customs were where you wanted to do it.

John, you had better recheck your facts buddy, anarchy, anarchist,
promoting anarchy are all terms used thus far. So are you just proving your
own stupidity again? Why don't you contain your comments to items which you
can accurately discuss. It wasn't only JeffM either, several other posters
as well but I didn't bother to check which groups they were posting from. So
it was not so easily missed if you actually read the content of the thread
before making up more lies.

---
OK, so I missed some of it and you _have_ been accused of
anarchistic behavior by several people. Those accusations and your
"I'm right and everyone else is wrong." attitude just add fuel to
the fire burning to prove that you're basically a misanthrope.
---

If you had any interest in what my view actually was then you would
have
found it in my posts or you should have asked before wildly applying
labels.

---
But I don't, so I didn't. Nor did I need to. Your "view" is
blatantly obvious and is predicated on your belief that you should
be able to do whatever you please, whenever you please, without
regard for anyone else.
---

Wrong John. You are so simply forgetting what started the thread. An
"abrasive" overzealous wannabe Usent cop named JeffM behaving badly,
berating other's posts and just generally being rude all in the name of
these are the rules.

---
Regardless of what started this thread, what I chose to do was to
comment on _your_ remarks, which I considered to be inappropriate.

Again, JeffM offered abrasive commentary coupled with help, while
all you've done so far is bitch and whine.
---

So who's being
paranoid/phobic
now? LOL!

I don't know, John Field/JeffM/others that insist on these rules and
attack those who suggest their rules are crap?

---
I see you trim to _destroy_ context...

I suggest adhering to guidelines which the majority accepts as
useful. You insist on others following your rule of no rules, which
is always detrimental.
---

You are more comfortable with bottom posting, I am not. So you are
saying that you are right and I am wrong. So does posting outside of your
cultural rules make posts less intelligent or less knowledgeable than you
or
JeffM?

---
Yes.

I forgot, intelligence has more than 2 syllables. Sorry to have posed a
question that went right over your head John.

---
Intelligence has _no_ syllables. The word: 'intelligence' has four.

Nor can a post be intelligent or knowledgeable.

The poster can, but there's little evidence of that existing on your
end.
---

I often do that with newbies from Google groups who post without
using context by including this message from Google in my reply to
their post:

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."


Yes, so you are suggesting that others follow standards that you do not
even follow? Your posts have not been as so described, you use this
interspersed method of quoting and replying. So contrary words and actions
again.

---
Not at all.

You must have missed it, but my very first post (or somewhere
thereabouts, I'm not going to look it up) to you indicated that
"in-line" posting was considered to be OK, and why shouldn't it be?
If you want to make an immediate comment about something, you make
it where the something you want to comment about occurs. Duh...

The whole point of adhering to posting guidelines is to make it
easier for everyone using the medium to be "on the same page" and,
therefore, to make communications easier.

What throws a monkey wrench into the works is when someone like you
comes along with a the preconceived notion that your way is the best
way and, dammit, that's the way it's going to be no matter how many
people complain.
---

I have seen many times that people refer to bottom posting and there
being logic behind it. Right off the bat I see one glaring logic flaw. It is
typically not possible to quickly preview the message for the new content,
typically you will only see the quoted text from the previous post, where is
the logic in that? It is completely illogical to have to scroll through the
previous message (again) to get to the post's new content or contribution.

---
The trick is not to quote _everything_, but what is relevant to the
reply, in order to give the reader a quick brush-up on what's being
replied to, specifically, and also to indicate _who's_ being replied
to, since often a reply posted with no context and no source
attribution can be construed as coming from any number of sources,
muddling the meaning of the reply.
---

Do you put bibiographies, references and footnotes at the beginning of
books?

---
No, but these aren't bibliographies, references, or footnotes,
they're more like ongoing conversations, where the chronology of the
content is what matters.

Finally, since you seem to be so dead-set against bottom posting, I
suspect you've never tried it, so you really have no basis in fact
for your dislike of it.

Why don't you try it for a while and see what happens?

You might be surprised.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Kevin G. Rhoads]

Your post is very nicely attempting to twist things around.

Strongly suggest you assume Lotus position and chant above mantra until you begin to
achieve enlightenment. At present you are doomed to repeating cycles upon the wheel
of karma.

Or, if you'd prefer another venacular: "been there, done that, boring!";
you are describing your own posts.

 

[John]

On Sat, 18 Mar 2006 18:16:48 +0000, "Kevin G. Rhoads"
<kgrhoads@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

Your post is very nicely attempting to twist things around.

Strongly suggest you assume Lotus position and chant above mantra until you begin to
achieve enlightenment. At present you are doomed to repeating cycles upon the wheel
of karma.

Or, if you'd prefer another venacular: "been there, done that, boring!";
you are describing your own posts.

The subject was:
could you give me the source codes of Hope and Atlanta?

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:57:30 -0600, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 21:02:37 +0100, "Rutger Stoots" <Rutger@home
wrote:

do you have an unmodulated version of the carrier avaialble to you in
the system?

you need a way to subtract or null out the carrier first

Mark


No I don't, but I could create it, because I know the exact frequency, not
the phase nor the (exact) amplitude.

Sorry, I posted this question at sci. electronics.basics also.

---
Yes, that's a problem, but one that can be easily fixed by
crossposting. That is, in your newsreader, in the area where you
enter which newsgroup you want to post to, enter _all_ the
newsgroups you want to post to.

That way everybody will read what everybody is posting from any of
the crossposted newsgroups, eliminating having to go from newsgroup
to newsgroup to follow the thread.

I've taken the liberty of crossposting this to what are probably
appropriate newsgroups. You may want to do the same thing with your
other posts as they get answered.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer

 

[Ed Chilada]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:29:01 -0800, "P Hoberg"
<nospamphobergnospam@att.net> wrote:

I have 3 FujiFilm digital cameras that all use the same type of 5 volt
chargers. One of the chargers is missing, and I want to give my oldest
camera to my daughter. I can only find 4.5 volt universal chargers that fit
the camera's plug-in. I can set the polarity correctly. Will the slightly
lower voltage damage the camera? Will it be sufficient to recharge the
battery? I hesitate to "just try it" because of the possible damage. Is
there a better place for me to post this query?

Chargers like this often have a fair degree of tolerance and
personally I suspect it'll work. AFAIUI voltage is like a 'pressure'
that pushes the current through, slightly less pressure shouldn't
therefore cause any problems - it'll either work or not work.

I've added sci.electronics.misc so one of the large-foreheaded boffins
in there can either confirm it, or tell me I'm an idiot.

 

[AZ Nomad]

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:56:20 GMT, Ed Chilada <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:29:01 -0800, "P Hoberg"
nospamphobergnospam@att.net> wrote:

I have 3 FujiFilm digital cameras that all use the same type of 5 volt
chargers. One of the chargers is missing, and I want to give my oldest
camera to my daughter. I can only find 4.5 volt universal chargers that fit
the camera's plug-in. I can set the polarity correctly. Will the slightly
lower voltage damage the camera? Will it be sufficient to recharge the
battery? I hesitate to "just try it" because of the possible damage. Is
there a better place for me to post this query?

Chargers like this often have a fair degree of tolerance and
personally I suspect it'll work. AFAIUI voltage is like a 'pressure'
that pushes the current through, slightly less pressure shouldn't
therefore cause any problems - it'll either work or not work.

Digital electronics don't like being run at voltages for which they
were not designed. Electronics gates may fail to fully turn on or off.
At a lower voltage, some devices will draw more current and may exceed
their design parameters.

If the camera is worth more than $150, why not spend the $30 to find the right
adapter? Get one used on ebay if you're too damn cheap.

 

[Yukio YANO]

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 17:56:20 GMT, Ed Chilada <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:



On Fri, 24 Mar 2006 01:29:01 -0800, "P Hoberg"
nospamphobergnospam@att.net> wrote:




Digital electronics don't like being run at voltages for which they
were not designed. Electronics gates may fail to fully turn on or off.
At a lower voltage, some devices will draw more current and may exceed
their design parameters.

If the camera is worth more than $150, why not spend the $30 to find the right
adapter? Get one used on ebay if you're too damn cheap.

Nice story !! but the Camera actually runs on the Internal Battery . and
none of the quoted nonsense applies.

The quoted 4.5 Volts may actually be the Average Voltage from the
Charger and may well be 5.0 volts peak, which is the part of the
waveform that charges the batteries. The test is does the battery hold
a full Charge after an overnight charge cycle. Try it!. Worst case is
the battery will not come to a full charge . In which case you have your
answer.

Yukio YANO

 

[AZ Nomad]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 03:52:36 GMT, Yukio YANO <yano@shaw.ca> wrote:

Nice story !! but the Camera actually runs on the Internal Battery . and
none of the quoted nonsense applies.

The AC adapter is magically wired to the battery without any electronics.

 

[SMS]

Yukio YANO wrote:

Nice story !! but the Camera actually runs on the Internal Battery . and
none of the quoted nonsense applies.

On many of the cameras that charge the Li-Ion battery internally, you
can run the camera off the AC adapter without a battery in the camera at
all.

The quoted 4.5 Volts may actually be the Average Voltage from the
Charger and may well be 5.0 volts peak, which is the part of the
waveform that charges the batteries.

There is no waveform. This a DC charger, with capacitors to smooth out
the rectified power.

The test is does the battery hold
a full Charge after an overnight charge cycle. Try it!. Worst case is
the battery will not come to a full charge . In which case you have your
answer.

Probably true. Without a battery in the camera, if the camera is turned
on, the 300mA wall wart won't do anything, since the load is so high
that the voltage will be very low.

With a battery in the camera and the camera on, the battery will
continue to discharge, just maybe a little slower. With the battery in
the camera and the camera off, it may charge the camera battery, maybe
not, though at a higher voltage setting on the adapter, it may charge
the, just a bit slower.

Personally, I'd buy the proper adapter and be done with it. The proper
adapter will cost around $20, including shipping, from Sterlingtek.com,
or the universal Philmore adapter will coat around $25, including
shipping from minute-man. Or a 5 volt regulated adapter from All
Electronics is about $12 including shipping, but you have to buy the
proper tip and solder it on, which is not worth the trouble.