magnetic field

[Mark Zenier]

In article <sssmgvsgstcua1bijqqgd5ec8ioebartmh@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speff@interlog.com> wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 20:14:32 GMT, the renowned "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote:


Still no argument from Steve. So sad.
---------------------
You're at your most pitiful when you posture instead of postulate.
How's that for alliteration, Spiro??

Very nice, Steve (you might work "pablum" into there too), but I
stopped reading these threads at around 1,000 posts. ;-)

I think he's talking to the ghost of Spiro "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"
Agnew, not you.

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Washington State resident

 

[Harry Conover]

"C What I Mean" <Nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<G%VOa.14463$OZ2.3065@rwcrnsc54>...

It would be helpful to learn what thread you are posting about!


Harry C.

 

[DarkMatter]

On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 06:04:41 GMT, Bucephalis <xsglynn@yahoo.com> Gave
us:

There is a big difference between protocol and etiquette, obvious
idiot.
Only in spelling.

More proof of your total cluelessness.

 

[CWatters]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030709070426.01346.00000049@mb-m26.news.cs.com...

And, yes, to increase the matching surface areas that much would require
"digging" into "innerspace".

Current proposals for a "unification theory" involve multiple dimensions
(more than 10)...but I suspect we won't be able to use these to increase the
surface area ;-)

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:47:00 GMT, the renowned mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark
Zenier) wrote:

I think he's talking to the ghost of Spiro "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"
Agnew, not you.

Ah, of course, and I say that with some *certitude* (with deference to
Howard).

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Precious Pup]

"R. Steve Walz" wrote:

Precious Pup wrote:

You're full of shit. Anyone who wants to know why need only walk down to the local library and check out the
mentioned book.
-------------
Which you clearly didn't,...

Douchebag, I own it -- I don't need to.

YOU'RE the one who's full of shit!

OKAY!


Thanks,
Pup

 

[C what I mean]

uumm.. I see that this wound up going a lot of places and didn't really post
only where it was desired.
It is the thread under alt.engineering.electrical heading "a new hope for
the working engineer". I have hundreds of answers displayed under this
thread. It has been going on and on and on....


"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0307091520.14df2702@posting.google.com...

"C What I Mean" <Nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<G%VOa.14463$OZ2.3065@rwcrnsc54>...

It would be helpful to learn what thread you are posting about!


Harry C.

 

[Sir Charles W. Shults III]

"Eyman" <user@anon.com> wrote in message
news:bel16v$6g0ku$1@ID-198481.news.uni-berlin.de...

Hi,


I know static electricity is a danger but will the manget effect of the
screwdriver stuff up my motherboard?

It won't bother it at all.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

 

[Nukie Poo]

"C what I mean" <pythan@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e5lPa.4560$IW5.1293@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

uumm.. I see that this wound up going a lot of places and didn't really
post
only where it was desired.
It is the thread under alt.engineering.electrical heading "a new hope for
the working engineer". I have hundreds of answers displayed under this
thread. It has been going on and on and on....


"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0307091520.14df2702@posting.google.com...
"C What I Mean" <Nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<G%VOa.14463$OZ2.3065@rwcrnsc54>...

It would be helpful to learn what thread you are posting about!


Harry C.


Hey Harry,

If you dislike the thread, than simply DON'T read it.

Paul

 

[B J Conner]

He's the guy whos engineers work 70 hours a week. He likes running other
people lives.

"Nukie Poo @verizon.net>" <vze32jp7<NO SPAM> wrote in message
news:n%oPa.78138$n%5.18761@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

"C what I mean" <pythan@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e5lPa.4560$IW5.1293@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
uumm.. I see that this wound up going a lot of places and didn't really
post
only where it was desired.
It is the thread under alt.engineering.electrical heading "a new hope
for
the working engineer". I have hundreds of answers displayed under this
thread. It has been going on and on and on....


"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0307091520.14df2702@posting.google.com...
"C What I Mean" <Nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<G%VOa.14463$OZ2.3065@rwcrnsc54>...

It would be helpful to learn what thread you are posting about!


Harry C.


Hey Harry,

If you dislike the thread, than simply DON'T read it.

Paul

 

[Roger Hamlett]

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@dial.pipexTHIS.com> wrote in message
news:emosgvo3s2v3d76rlg98mm5donrf8q62b8@4ax.com...

Anyone here know about Pocket PC cables please? I've just bought my
first PPC. It's an iPAQ 2210/2215, but I understand it has an
identical bottom connector to other Pocket PCs in any of the
38/39/54/5500 series. I want to connect my 2210 directly to my Garmin
GPS 12 for data transfer. Commercial solutions are either bulky (with
adapters) and/or unduly expensive, so I want to make my own, as I did
for connecting to my desktop PC.

What type of connector do I need to buy for the Pocket PC end? I've
attempted a photo of the connector in the iPAQ cradle at
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Images/2210socket1.jpg

That connector (I've given up trying to identify 'plugs' or
'sockets'!), which is protruding from the base of the cradle is about
10 mm wide, and appears to have 22 connections.

The equivalent socket slot on the 2210 is 15 mm wide.
You need the 'adapters'. The PocketPC, does not implement the voltage

conversions to RS232 levels internally. Hence the little 'inline' adapter
blocks have to do this. This is why the commercial solutions have these...

Best Wishes

 

[Brandon Berg]

"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0307091520.14df2702@posting.google.com...

It would be helpful to learn what thread you are posting about!

He was obviously referring to this thread. But you just had to go and keep
it alive anyway.

 

[Jerry Greenberg]

Eyman wrote:

Hi,

Im about to remove my motherboard from my computer case to install a
heatsink fan.

Ive typically been using a standard non magnetised screwdriver in the past,
but am thinking about using a magnetised screwdriver to remove and install
the motherboard in and out of the case.

I know static electricity is a danger but will the manget effect of the
screwdriver stuff up my motherboard?

thanks in advance

Eyman




You definitely can! Infact this is a good idea. There are also some

screwdrivers that also have a retaining clip. I have seen them a few
times. I infact would like to find one. I myself use a magnetic
screwdriver for many types of mounting applications. I have a big
button magnet that I keep for magnetizing screwdrivers. A few swipes
does the trick, if the magnetism goes weak. I keep magnetized
screwdrivers away from delicate things such as mechanical meter
movements, which are getting rare these days, and only found on very
specialized equipment.

Infact you can say that the screwdriver has a magnetic personality!


--

Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
==============================================
WebPage <http://www.zoom-one.com>
Electronics <http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm>
Instruments <http://www.zoom-one.com/glgtech.htm>
==============================================

 

[Bill Sloman]

ActualGeek <ActualGeek@no.real.address> wrote in message news:<ActualGeek-4FD43D.12410906072003@corp.supernews.com>...

In article <7c584d27.0307040302.375281e4@posting.google.com>,
bill.sloman@ieee.org (Bill Sloman) wrote:

Lets see, in 1913 the Federal Reserve-- the nations third Central Bank--
was formed, and in 1929 we had the greatest stock crash ever.

The formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913 caused the 1929 stock
market crash?

They weren't able to stop an speculative bubble

You know what a bubble is? A bubble is when the daily prices get too
far out of touch with the fundamental value.

Much like what happens when you start inflating currency.

But not the same as. Serious speculative bubbles are basically pyramid
cons, that suck in progressively more amateur investors. When the pool
of fools runs dry, the bubble breaks.

Now, you start inflating currency and what do you have? Higher prices. But > you also have more dollars --- cause each dollar is weaker-- being
circulated in a given company-- which looks like higher earnings, which
causes people to bid up the stock prices.

Which happens to be just what you want to happen in the recession that
follows the bursting of a speculative bubble.

Now who is it that can and does inflate the currency? The fed.

Exactly. But they are bankers, and see their primary role as
maintaining sound money by fighting inflation, so they tend to fall
short in their efforts to combat deflation.

Just look at the 90s-- since 1959 the average inflation has been %8, but
since 1995-- eg, the last half of the 90s to now, its been %8.6, most of
which happened between 1995 and 2000.

So what.

The bubble wasn't just stock speculation. It comes from manipulation of
the value of money as well.

By whom, and when?

Speculative bubbles don't need central banks. The original South Sea
bubble ran its course without any such intervention. In theory, the

True. Central banks make them worse, though.

In theory, they could. They don't.

Federal Reserve could have managed the economy better, and thus

This is your fundamental problem--- you want a centrally managed
economy. But because there's no way any central organization or person
can have all the information before its obsolete AND fully understand
what it means in time to react to it, all centralization of the
economy--- like we have had since the creation of the Federal Reserve,
which you conceded is trying to "manage the economy" -- will result in a
damaged and poorly "managed" economy.

I don't want a centrally managed economy. I want a distributed system
that can tame the instability of the unrestricted free market. In the
mean time, the centrally adjusted modified free market can minimise
the swing between boom and bust - it isn't perfect, but it is better
than the unrestricted free market.

If you don't have a centrally managed economy, not only do you have a
better one-- one that rewards people for their hard work, allowing the
poor to become middle class-- you also don't have to violate people's
rights by forcing them to live under your stalinist managed economy.

Rubbish. The depths of an unrestricted free market depression violate
many more of the rights of the unemployed than does any modern
modified free market economy.

Logic and history go against you here....which I knew going in. what's
unfortunate is you're unable to make a counter argument.

If you knew any history, I wouldn't need to make a counter argument.

Or maybe you're unwilling.

But youre repeated assertions, sans any argumentation, are worthless.

Let us say that you don't or can't understand the arguments I do make.

Let us be clear on this - you are putting the responsibility for the
fire on the firemen who failed to put it out, and using this as
argument for not having any firemen at all.

No, I'm putting the responsibility on the pyromaniacs. These people
are running around inflating the currency, manipulating prices thru
interest rate control, and you wonder about why the economy's
inefficient? (The fire).

If erros in the economy is analogous to fire, then the fed is a bunch
of pyromaniacs.

The pyromaniacs in a speculative bubble are the amateur investors.
Central banks can't do much about them, except to raise the price of
credit, but they'd have to raise it to levels that would damage
legitimate business.

After the bubble has burst, the central banks should make credit
cheaper to soften the consequent recession, but that is a reaction,
not a cause.

Yes, and it came about 16 years after the formation of the Federal
Reserve.

The Fed, remember, was supposed to save us from things like the stock
crash of 1929 and the depression that followed.

Once again, Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure.

If you had any idea of what you were talking about, you'd be aware
that boom/bust cycles are a feature of unrestrained free markets. The

That is your assertion. History does not prove you out.

What history?

Dutch "tulip mania" precedes stock markets, but shows most of the
features of modern speculative bubbles.

You have heard of things in passing, and so you bring them up, but you
clearly don't understand them. What really caused the "tulip mania"?
Do you even know?

Jonathan Israel's "History of the Dutch Repulbic" ISBN 0-19-820734-4,
mentions the "rapid accumulation of large surpluses amid restricted
investment opportunities". For more detail see "Tulipomania : The
Story of the World's Most Coveted Flower and the Extraordinary
Passions It Aroused" by Mike Dash
ISBN: 060980765X.

The disease has nothing to do with governments, and you attitude is
basically that fires are associated with firemen, so shoot the firemen
in the hope of eliminating the fires.

No, I'm pointing out that you are advocating setting forest fires to
prevent forest fires.

That is your unsupported and insupportable claim, based on some
moronic right-wing ideas about how the economy ought to work.

Russian Communism fell because it ended up having to commit too much
of its industrial production to supporting its army, whichdidn't leave
enough over to keep the population happy.

You mean the ones who were starving? Funny, they were starving because
wheat production dropped dramatically, not because money went to the
army.

Thus, government is a disease masquarading as its own cure.

Well, sort of. No government equals no army, and without an army you
acquire a new adminstration from elsewhere. Irak is a recent case in
point.

You can have an army without a government. And you can have a
government without an army.

Not for long. Armies are all too ready to replace legitimate
governments, and would see it as their duty to take over the
administration of any government-free area. Governments without armies
tend to be replaced by a government with an army - Irak being a case
in point.

The USA did not have a standing army or even police forces for its first
100 years.

No. It had state, city and town militias, which did the same job.
Learn some history, clown.

Can you name a single important social problem that the US government
has solved? (Things solved by private companies do not count.)

Illiteracy?

Nope, getting worse every year.

Though not when compared with the situation in 1830, when the U.S.
government first started getting into the act, or even the 1890's

http://www.bsu.edu/web/ksmith/history202outline.html

Interesting that you are only able to venture a guess at one problem,
and that one is a spectacular failure.

You asked for a single problem, you got a single answer - which wasn't
a guess - and public education hasn't been a spectacular failure, when
compared with what preceeded it. It certainly could do better - and
you're a prime example of its failure.

QED.

In your dreams.

I could "chose" neither the local protection racket, nor the
democratically elected representative government, but I haven't got
any means of enforcing my choice - and don't give me the NRA crap
about the right to bear arms, because effective armed resistance is
all about organisation, which is government.

Uh, you're telling me the National Organization of Women is part of the
government?

And in what what way are they germane to the argument?

The NRA is part of the government? Gee.

If you knew any history, you'd know that NRA regards their members as
the heirs to militia of the early days of the U.S.A. (see above),
conveniently ignoring the fact that their members don't drill
together, which is the crucial feature of any effective militia.

You can defend yourself with a simple rifle or hand gun effectively...
its much too expensive to enslave armed people.

NRA rubbish. Organised groups of troops make mincemeat of any armed
rabble.

Thus you don't have to defend yourself if you are armed because its not
worth their while. In other words, they'll go enslave someone like you, who > is avowedly unarmed, than risk getting shot by someone like me.

If they see you as an effective threat, they will put a shell through
you living room, or drop a mortar shell on your roof. I'll put my
money on less antiquated and less quixotic defences against
enslavement.

This is why I say you're bleating to be enslaved.

And you are putting your faith in hopelessly ineffective defences. The
Swiss and the Israeli's have effective citizen militias, but they have
real weapons and real training. Compared with them you are a clown,
infintely more dangerous to yourself and your immediate family than
any potential enslaver.

You can think of nothing better than enslavement and so you endorse it full > throttle.

Go to a dictionary, and read the definition of "slave". It doesn't
describe my condition, or the condition of any citizen of western
Europe.

That's sad.

That's comical.

What is the "good" that you think I can choose?

Liberty. Support for human rights. IF you endorsed these two ideas,
we'd have nothing to argue about. All of our discussion comes down to
these two ideas. Either you have human rights, and you agree with my
positions, or you endorse slavery, and you disagree.

So far, you endorse slavery.

You cannot have a federal reserve without forcing people to only use
FRNs. Thus you are forcing people to be defrauded.

How are they defrauded?

You cannot have a government-- as you use the word-- without trampling over
people's human rights.

And you cannot abandon government without losing even more human
rights.

Furthermore, as a proponent of socialism, you endorse taking
all the products of ones labor and redistributing it to the wealthy.
Which is in practice the same as endorsing the slavery of the old south.

I'm not a proponent of that sort of socialism. Your description more
or less fits the practice of Russian Communism before it collapsed,
but it also describes what Dubbya is doing in the U.S.A. at the
moment.

My experience of what you would see as socialism, was moving from
Thatcher's (actually Major's) Britain, with beggars on the streets, to
the slightly more heavily taxed Netherlands, where the unemployed get
enough money to keep them in a state where they are immediately
employable, if someone has a job to offer them. I thought that the
Dutch choice was the better one. Australia works the same way, and
pre-Thatcher England did too.

Will Hutton claims that it pays off in purely capitalist terms, and
his evidence is plausible.

The free market isn't stable, and its instabilities compromise the
freedom of the poor much more than they do the rich, who buy up
everything that isn't nailed down during periods of depression.

What a load of claptrap. Without free markets, the poor get poorer.
With them, the poor get richer.

Not in the U.S.A. over the last twenty years.

Its that simple.

It is a pity that it isn't true.

Depressions are caused by governments interfering with the free markets.

Depressions are usually caused by the bursting of speculative bubbles,
which seem to be intrinsic features of unrestrained free markets. As
Keynes pointed out, and Keynes-influenced governments subsequently
demonstrated, the consequent depressions can be ameliorated by
government action.

The rich hate this. They can't buy up anything like as much of the
goodies during an ameliorated depression.

Without government interference, the "depressions" would be when the
market was only growing at 3-4% a year-- eg: what it maxed out at during
the 90s!

So you claim. The rsing edge of the boom is your idea of "normal
growth". Fourteen years of Thatcher's Britain was good for 1.6% per
year, while France and Germany achieved a bit over 2%.

Admit it, you just want to take from the rich and give to the poor--
which shows your ignorance of economics. For every dollar you take from
the rich and give to a poor person, you destroy $2-3 that would have
gone to that same poor person from jobs created by the rich person
spending the dollar you took from him!

This is "trickle-down" economics - another fatuous fanatasy from the
Regan years. It didn't work.

The alternative-- your alternative-- is always fascism in one form or
another.

This is ludicrous. A fascist is a follower of Benito Mussolini, who is
long dead journalist with a talent for pompous bull-shit. If it
represents a political philosophy, it represents unrestrained
expediency.

That would be Mussolinism. You don't get to redefine terms to suit
your arguments. Fascism is clearly defined... but what few people
recognize is that its a form of socialism.

Wrong. Mussolini called it Fascism, after some bizarre Roman symbol of
authority, and the name stuck. Nobody in their right mind sees it as a
form of socialism - the socialist parties of the time certainly
didn't, and Mussolini didn't demonstrate any feelings of kinship.

The political philosophy it represents-- remember you can look this up
in a dictionary if you ever want to be educated-- is the illusion of
capitalism with government control over the organizations. And of
course strict government control over people's lives.

That is a passable description of facsism, though it misses the point
that the government sees itself in a position to dispose of people's
lives.

It is not the definition in the supplement to the Complete Oxford
dictionary, which emphasises the role of Mussolini and merely mentions
that it generalises to similar authoritarian right-wing regimes.

It isn't an acceptable description of socialism, which certainly
claims the right to intervene to constrain the excesses of capitalism
- in the same sort of way the U.S. anti-trust laws were intended to
work - but doesn't claim government control over people's lives,
beyond the level that ensures that kids get fed and educated.
Socialist goverments - like every other governemnt that has ever
existed - claim the right to collect taxes to finance their program.

That's you.

That is another straw man. You've defined your own socialism of a form
that few socialists would recognise, then complain that you don't like
it.

But that's not popular with fascists like yourself, is it?


You will have to look fairly hard to find a fascist like me. The only
extant

All of them are like you.

Read what I wrote. There aren't any fascists left.Mussolini died a
long time ago and today's neo-fascists are just one more lunatic
fringe.

You contradict yourself. But at least you recognize you're a lunatic.

I recognise that I'm arguing with a lunatic.

All fascists have a single identical characteristic-- opposition to
human rights.

The fascists weren't opposed to human rights - they just ignored them
- in the same way you ignore the unpleasant social consequences of the
unrestrained free market economy to which you are irrationally
devoted.

You have yet to point out any unpleasent social consequences, except for
the poor getting richer. But I think the poor getting richer is a
pleasent consequence of capitalism.

That is what you think, but it isn't true. The evidence is right there
outside your front door, and you have been ignoring it for twenty
years.

Anyway, you should go read a dictionary to figure out what fascism is.
Obviously you're not going to listen to me and prefer your ignorance.
Maybe you'll believe the dictionary.

The Complete Oxford agrees with me. What dictionary do you use?

But I'll be sure to tell my jewish friends that you think Hitler wasn't
opposed to human rights. I'm sure they'll think its funny.

They will think it even funnier if you show them what I actually
wrote. But the joke will be on you.

You want to enslave and starve the world, you want to take away human
rights. You are advocating the policies previous fascists have put into
effect.

The word fits.

Only if we follow your convoluted logic. I don't want to enslave the
world - I want a distributed mechanism

Enslavement is when you force people to give up the products of their
labor to someone else.

Look up the dictionary definition of slave.

Your distribution mechanism forces people to give up the products of
their labor to someone else.

This happens to be one of the necessary side effects of citizenship.

Citizenship involves giving up part of the products of your labour for
the use of the community as a whole - thus other people, and thus
someone else.

So I believe in citizenship, not slavery, and you believe in
ungoverned chaos.

QED.

Yes. You have demonstrated that you don't know the difference between
citizenship and slavery.

that can tame the instabilites
of the free market economy more effectively than central banks using

Despite the fact that it never has whenever its been tried, and has been
a total failure in every regard, and also requires the wholesale
violation of human rights?

You claim to know more about my desired but - as yet unrealised -
system than I do myself. In fact you are merely identifying it with
what you see as "socialism", otherwise recognisable as the monster
that hides under the bed.

Keynesian adjustments to liquidity (which was pretty effective in the
1950's and 1960's), ths freeing us from the - fairly indirect -
control by the central banks.

That's a pretty idiotic statmeent to say-- the economy was booming
because of war production, not due to Keynes-- a thoroughly discredited
economist, by the way.

Keynes is merely unfashionable. Ignorant as you are of history, it is
probably necessary to point out that the second wold war ended in
1945, and the economic consequences of the war weren't all that
salient in the late 1950s and the 1960s.

In so far as we now have better mechanisms for collecting a
distributing economic data,we should be able to end up with a more
efficient system that runs fairly close to its full capacity all the
time.

This is your magic wish. Somehow you think being able to collect more
dat will magically allow some fascist to centrally control everything
and make things efficient.

I really don't believe that a central control mechanism would do a
particularly good job, but this a point that you can't understand, and
consequently ignore. I even share you anxiety that a central control
mechanism would fall into the hands of fascist-like right-wing
nit-wits, much as it has in the U.S.A. at the moment, which is one of
the reasons why I'd prefer a distributed mechanism.

But you forget that data must be interpreted.

Not if you have the right sort of mechanism. The free market doesn't
"interpret" its data.

The government cannot accurately interpret data as it is, let alone if you
increase the quantity of data by a couple orders of magnitude.

The government is probably trying to interpret the wrong data. Collect
the right data, and thye might have a much easier job.

You're pinning all your hopes on this fantasy, despite the fact that you
have to enslave the whole populace to carry it out.

I'm not pinning any hopes on it. It sounds like a fun project for my
retirement.
Bearing in mind that your definition of slavery is everybody else's
definition of citizenship, the incremental cost of this approach seems
to be zero.

You are sounding increasingly psychotic.

I'm not frightened by socialists lurking under the bed, who may at any
moment spring out to enslave me, nor do I keep a loaded 45 under my
pillow to forestall this - admittedly terrifying - prospect.

This may be psychotic of me, but it keeps the neighbours happy.

Because agriculture now has the capacity to feed the world, starvation
today is a failure of organisation, and that improvement in efficiency
ought ot allow us to eliminate starvation, though we'd have to beat
Malthus to keep it eliminated (but since economic development seems to
stabilise population numbers we may get this without having to work at
it).


More ignorance from you. Only place starvation happens is where
governments-- notice how they all seem to be your brand of socialist
governments?-- steal all the food and starve their people.

That would be North Korea. Not my brand of socialist government at
all, but a pretty good fit to your definition of fascism.

Can you name a starvation that's happened in recent years that wasn't
due to this?

Didn't think so.

Horn of Africa - drought in war-torn countries. Don't you ever read
the newpapers?

And what's your response? More starvation! You advcoate starvation as a
cure for starvation!

Only in terms of your pseudo-logic.

Like I sead, Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure!
Government creates starvation and masquarades as the cure for it!

If you knew history, you'd know that the communist Chinese government
scored one spectacular success early on - it essentially eliminated
starvation as a major cause of death in China, mainly by shipping
surplus food from places where the crops hadn't failed to places where
it had. China is big enough and fertile enough for this to work. They
now seem to have improved agricultural efficiency to the point where
they can afford to see people moving off the land to work in
factories.

I don't like the way they are doing it, and I detest their government
style, but it is working, and better than in India.

And you're a sucker who bougth the cum on hook line and sinker!


I follow Keynes in the opinion that the free-market economy is inherently
unstable, and observe that his preferred system of damping these
instabilities via the central banks did seem to work. This strikes me
as a

Yeah, by your standards the Great Depression was a success!

This represents remarkably poor logic. The central banks failed to
damp out the Great Depression to the extent that they didn't follow
Keynesian policies - the Scandinavians came closest to what was to
become the Keynesian approach, and suffered least from the Great
Depression.

Ah, they followed Keynes and created the Great Depression. If they had
only followed Keynes they could have created a world wide depression
that was even worse, and THAT you could have called a success?

The Swedes anticipated Keynes, who hadn't formalised his ideas at that
time.
Their - minor - effect on the international economy in the 1930's was
entirely benign.

I talk about how you pyromaniacs create fire and advocate firemen, and
you're response is "NO! If we only created more fire, there'd be
nothing left to burn!"

Jesus but that's a stupid, ignorant, position.

As an example of false logic, that takes some beating.

You seem to have this binary picture of the world - everything that
isn't free-market capitalism is socialism and thus bad.

There is letting people live and there is killing them.

Lets see. We've got free-market capitalists in Irak, killing people
and getting killed.

False.

The Russians are now free-market capitalists, and

False.


they are busy killing people and getting killed in Tchechenia. These
are your people. The rather more socialist rest of the world doesn't
think much of this. These are my people.

You mean all the socialists in Africa killing people?

The "socialists" in Africa are just ordinary thugs, without any
ideological baggage -socialist or otherwise.

Hmmm Iraq: A socialist country that has killed tens of thousands over the
decades. RUssia, a socialist country that has killed millions over the
decades.

Irak's Baath party were more national socialist than socialist, which
is to say fascist-like. I know you can't recognise the difference, but
try and recognise this as your personal defect, analogous to
colour-blindness.

Stalin's paranoia killed a lot of Russians. That he claimed to be a
socialist doesn't make murder a socialist habit.

These are your examples-- millions killed by socialism.

Millions killed, but none of them by socialism.

And you call them free markets?

A little incoherence here?

How pathetic and desperate of a lie is that?

What a pathetic excuse for a sentence.

Ask anyone-- don't take my word for it-- they will tell you that the
Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was a ... SOCIALIST country!

So they claimed. It looked very like a criminal oligarchy to the
disinterested observer.

Not so many people know that Iraq is a socialist country because they
confuse socialism with dictatorship and think they are two different
things (notice that all socialist countries are also dictatorships? How
is one rich guy runnign things going to help the poor? Hmmm?) But the
Baath party in Iraq is clearly socialist.

If you see socialists under every bed, you may see Saddam's Irak as
socialist country. You will be locked up in a sanctuary for the
incurably right-wing if you admit it in public, but it is a recognised
dementia. You are not alone, unfortunately - just wrong.

And, lets look at China-- millions starved, North Korea-- tens if not
hundreds of thousands killed, most of africa, central america, cuba etc.

The Chinese communists saved millions from starvation.

Seems the score is 100 million for me, zero for you.

Probably closer to the reverse, counting the millions the chinese
communists saved from starvation. North Korea and central Africa would
be a losers for me, if they were socialist regimes, as opposed to
criminal oligarchies, but the numbers are minimal compared with before
and after figures for the chinese communists - and this time you can
find them - I've done more than enough googling in response to your
unsupported allegations.

Funny how you cannot find a free-market capitalist country with
significant starvation,

U.S.A..India

and you cannot find a socialist country (that's
been around for any lenght of time) without it!

U.K., communist China

Maybe france.... but france is the exception that proves the rule. The
difference between france and the ussr is that france allows some
capitalism to occur.

That's my binary view of the world.

That put you on the side of the murderous.

Only in terms of your spurious logic.

I've repeatedly pointed tou that that your policies have murdered over
100 million people.

And you are completely wrong.

You have yet to lay a single one at my feet.

I'm to find a corpse and carry it to the U.S.A.?
Sick man, sick.

I recognize that some people just try to injure people instead of kill
them outright... but I don't cut a lot of slack for those types.

You should. Kill somebody and they can be buried on the spot. Injure
them, and they have to be carried back to the dressing station, and
cared for and fed, even thugh they can't fight any more.

Thanks for explaining why you prefer to kill the poor people rather than
injure them.

I don't. You seem to be the one who wants at least one corpse laid at
his feet.

In fact there are lots of versions of modified free-market capitalism,
almost all of which work better than the totally hands-off scheme that
gave us the great depression, and there are a whole bunch of
systems of

That you must lie about history shows you know your position to be a
fraudulent one. (or you are too ignorant to waste time arguing with.)

Your ignorance allows you to blame market instability on government
intervention, while there are plenty of examples of market instability

Those are the facts.

Those are the "facts" visible to your singularly ill-informed vision.

tulip mania if not earlier. I'm not lying about history, and while the

Well, its possible you aren't lying-- that you're just saying absurd
things because you don't know any better.

I think to be lying you have to know the truth and then tell an untruth.

I think you know nothing and are just repeating what someone else told
you.

That you countinue to repeat these things after I've educated you about
history, presented dozens of logical arguments (Which you dutifly
ignore) and still you present these absurd, unsupported conclusions,
sans any argument....

You're just a useful idiot to them.


message of history doesn't fit your prejudices, describing what I
wrote as a lie is not actually justifiable.

cooperation, some of them described - very misleadingly - as anarchism,
which might just work better than our current system, granting really
good information systems.

There would be no government in anarchism. Thus there would be no
central control over the economy. Thus you would have a totally free
market economy.

Not exactly. You'd have lots of collaborating local - essentially
municipal - governments, all working to the same set of rules
thatconstrian in the isntabiliters of the totally free market.

Dictionary time again, this time, go look up anarchism.

The Complete Oxford lists it with anarcho-syndicalism and associates
it with Proudhon

http://flag.blackened.net/

somewhat to my surprise. The name I'd had in mind was Kropotkin.

I don't. What I said was that we can now collect a lot more
information than just the cash transfer for every transaction, and
if we could find a way of making this information available
outside the firms who collect the data for their own use, we
should be able todevise a *distributed* control system that ought > > > > > > to be more stable,
and could run a lot closer to full capacity.

Impossible, because what you desire requires omniscience and the
ability to see the future.

The current modified free-market systems work reasonably well without
these advantages, and with only a restricted set of the information
that is now available within commercial organisations.
Try and get your head around this point - it one that I have been
trying to get over to you for some time now, but it looks as if you
are a little too preprogrammed to be
able to accomodate the concept.

Is just the ludicrous excuse of those who want to enslave everyone.
Don't fall for such a patently obvious lie.

Er. Who wants to enslave everybody? How does setting up a more
flexible and more nearly optimal economic system make everybody
slaves? Who is producing patently ludicrous lies?

You are, and you do. You want to force everyone to live as you see
fit-- to get paid what YOU think they should get paid-- lest they be
exploited. etc.

Far from it. I want to see everybody live as they see fit, constrained
only by the minimum level of economic organisation that can constrain
the instabilities of the free market.

Your minimum level is slavery. And any of your slavery is a violation
of human rights.

My minimal level is citizenship. It violates the bare minimum of human
rights.

You don't like the repercussions of what you advocate, stop advocating
it.

Since you seem incapable of understanding what I am advocating, your
predictions of it's repercussions would seem to be irrelevant as well as
comic.

Except that history shows the reality to be not very funny at all.

History says nothing about what I hope can be developed.

100,000,000 people slaughtered under your policy in the last 100 years.

Retrospectively. You do seem to think that I need a time machine ...

Every centrally planned economy in the history of the world has
failed, or been far less successful than less centrally planned
economies of similar conditions.

Since I'm not arguing for a centrally planned economy

Yes, you are. That is exactly what you're arguing for. You just
claim it isn't. Any economy which is controlled by the government
or any entity outside the owners of the companies in the economy is
a centrally planned economy.

Then you too live in a centrally planned economy, and all we are
arguing about is which centrally planned economy is least worst.

In fact I'm interested in decentrallised control mechanisms, analogous
to the the decentrallised access control of the original
Ethernet protocol. What

You mean, only one good can be traded at a time, and the whole economy
shuts down to wait for it to finish trading? That's a pretty stupid
protocol.

That is an extremely stupid way of understanding what I wrote. The
Ethernet has only got one channel, and the protocol that ensures that
it is shared fairly works without any central control.

No, I was pointing out that what you were saying was very stupid. If yo
uwere talking about something else, you should have explained it.

There are levels of explanation, and levels of understanding. You
understand the difference between "unrestricted free market" and
"socialism" as a binary distinction. There isn't a lot of point trying
to explain anything moderately complicated to that sort of mind.

But anyway, the protocol you think exist doesn't. Each node on etherent
just waits for a chance to talk. There's no protocol for redistribution
of wealth.

Well, there are. They are called taxation, and work through central
and municipal goverments, with most of the levels determined by
central government.

This etherenet example proves my hypothesis-- you'll just talk abou
things you know nothing about but heard from somebody.

little did you know I knew how etherent worked.... your bullshit isn't
flying.

Everybody knows how the Ethernet works - I learned in the 1970's from
a special issue of the Proceeding of the IEEE, and learned it well
enough to get a job from 1979 to 1982 where part of my responsibility
was to know how it worked in detail. What do you think was the weakest
point of the original Intel/DEC/Xerox specification, then?

The economy has many channels of communications - and I'd like to see
more, and more information passing along each channel - and what we

Yes, police states, like the socialist you are, always advocate
wholesale spying and destruction of privacy.

While right-wingers like you merely practice it.

The idea that you want cameras in all the womens bathrooms just to make
sure they don't run out of toilet paper is not going to fool anybody.

When a single-beam optical sensor would do the same job.

need is a trick to damp out the instabilities of the free market
economy which can work without the intervention of some central
control mechanism.

You don't understand the basics of how the free market works, thus its
not surprising that you are unable to come up with something better.

You don't understand how the free market fails to work, so you own
grasp of the basics is questionable. Of course, with you this is a
matter of faith, so you are a fanatic rather than a fool.

Once again, I am reminded that you have no clue what you're talking
about.

Once again, I am reminded that you have no clue about what I'm talking
about.

Because I do have a clue about economics, and you are spewing nonsense
that you cannot even back up!

The evidence for this claim being the nonsense that you spew up?

little I know about the "anarchist" social philosophy suggests that
this is their kind of thing.

Again, you don't seem to comprehend the definition of anarchism.
Without government, who would insure the employees weren't
"exploited"???

"Anarchism" as a social philosophy, does involve lots of small,
collaborating local governments - as I said, the label is misleading.

Read the dictionary, you idiot.

Look up anarchism, not anarchy. The Complete Oxford points you to
Proudhon.
You may find Bakunin and Kropotkin if you look hard.

that failed in the USSR. In so far as China, Japan and Korea have
more central planning than India, and grew their economies twice
as fast during the catch-up phase, some central planning would
seem to be a good idea.

You have been reading a bunch of lies, and now you are repeating
them to me! Hell, you act as if korea were one country.

South Korea is one country. North Korea hasn't got an economy worthy
of the name.

And yet, as a command control economy, its the epitome of your ideology.

Now you are lying. I've spent enough time pointing out that I am not
advocating a command control economy to be entitled to describe this
claim as an outright and idiotic lie.

Yes, you want total information awareness, total control over the
economy, and you insist its not a command control economy.

it is an outright and idiotic lie.

I don't want total information - I want more that the simple cash
aggregates that the free market uses. And I don't want total control -
which would seem to be impossible in any event. What I want is a
system that will self-regulate at the local level and yet not be
susceptible to the boom and bust instability of the simple free
market. This would seem to be a long way from "total control".

And when pressed on this, you keep repeating the contradiction and
calling me a liar for pointing it out.

The contradiction is in your mind, and your ridiculous preconceptions.

How can you have total control without having total control?

There's a ridiculous preconception.

Just look at what's happened in India in the last 20 years since
they gave up central planning and curtailed government
interference-- they have doubled the incomes, on average, of
a billion people.

Doubling over 20 years is a growth rate of 3.5% per year -
respectable for a third world economy catching-up, but half the
rate achieved by Japan, Korea and China during their catch-up
phases.

Now you're just flat out lying. I didn't say the economy doubled, I
said the INCOME of the average person doubled.

I didn't say anything about the economy doubling, I just said that the
growth rate (by implication in average income) was respectable, but
about half than that achieved by Japan, (South) Korea and China, when
their economies were catching up.

A claim you keep making, but you have never bothered to back up. Admit
it, you're lying. (Or put up the numbers. Mine can be had at the
indian governments website.)

So where is this "flat out lie"? Find your own numbers via google as I
did if you think I'm making a false claim.

Yet you didn't post them. Curious.

They were spread over a number of URLs. A new search threw up this,
which contrasts China and India

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/thomson040903.html

No surprise, you found an article that talks about asian growth.

But it does not support your hypothesis, and doesn't have any relevant
actual numbers.

Actually, it does. It points out that India ought to be achieving the
6% to 7% growth now being achieved by China, which was exactly the
point I was making.

It doesn't mention that Japan and South Korea achieved similar rates
in their catch-up phases, but granting that you couldn't read one URL
carefully, more would have been totally wasted.

Frankly, capitalism is the cure for poverty, and it works every
time.

If so, why does it work so poorly in the U.S.A., where the poorest > > > > > > 30 or 40 million have been slipping back since Regan started
dismantling welfare?

A lie based on a lie.

And your counter-evidence is? I was directly quoting Paul Krugman, but
I've seen similar figures in Scientific American.
Who is your authority. Bob Jones?

Ah, so you were plagarizing a lie! Do you know about the logical
fallacy of argument from authority?

I was quoting a sentence, which doesn't qualify as plagarisation. I've
been exposed to this message from numerous sources over the years, and
I've got no reason to think that it is untrue.

Yes, you have no reason to think.

And you lack the capacity.

Since you can't even find a counter-authority, your claim that I am
presenting a falacious claim based on a false authority rests only on
the authority of your own prejudices - the prejudices of someone who
can't even manage to read the text to which he is responding.

On the contrary, I have cited a counter authority on many occassions.

Here's the latist-- talking about the depression:

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=438&sortorder=authorla
st

A debate between two doctrinaire nitwits resurrected by a third.

Mises and Rothbard-- two well respected economists-- have correctly
predicted market cycles.

Before or after the event?

You can go to mises.org and read commentaries
from economists who make predictions and then see them come true 6
months later. But they aren't soothsayers like you prefer, they
actually explain why things will happen the way they do.

I had the same expereince with Guardian newspaper in the U.K. back in
the late 1980's.

The poor have been doing better since Reagan.

According to?

And it has generally done well in America, with the exception of the
fact that the government takes half of everyone's income and
essentially destroys it.

Since it spends large chunk of the tax income on a fatuously oversized
military machine, this is a difficult proposition to entirely disagree
with.But some of the money spent on the military is justifiable - you
need defence forces, as well as police forces, diplomatic
services, highways, air-traffic control, the FDA, the NBS and a whole
long list of services which depend on your tax dollars.

The right wing enthusiasm for privatisation ignores (as usual) the
lessons of history. In the U.K. Thatcher privatised a whole lot of
stuff which had started off as private companies in Victorian times
and been taken over by the municipalities and later the central
government because the commercial services hadn't worked very well.
And - guess what - they don't work very
well now that they have been re-privatised a hundred years later. The
railways are a particularly salient case in point.

Gee, could it be that they are saddled with too much regulation? No! It
must be because they are private!

Quite the reverse from too much regulation - the whole problem was a
combination of the obvious problem of privatised services, combined
with what turned out to have been under-regulation.

The privatised railways had cheap-skated on track maintenance to the
point where there were a couple of serious rail accidents with a
number of fatalities. The current - Labour - government then had to
step in, and effectively renationalise the company responsible for
track maintenance, enforce much tighter rules on maintenance, and
inject a whole lot of capital to pay for the work required to clear up
the years of neglect. Between the speed restrictions on the extensive
areas of track now recognised as under-maintained, and the much
increased maintenance work to get the rail network back in shape, the
train schedules were in a horrible mess for more than a year

How is it that you are always able to get food, if private industry is
so incompetent?

It isn't a "natural monopoly". The railways, the gas, gas and
electical supplies are. You only build one set of railway tracks, one
set of telephone lines and one set of water and gas pipes.

Yet every service provided by government is poorly delivered and costs
far too much.

Hard to have the benefits of capitalism when the govenrment destroys
half the value.

Or, put another way, since 1913 this country as been increasingly a
socialist country.

But you've done very well, even so.

The European version of the capitalist economy includes a rather
better welfare system, which pays off in better educated and
eventually more productive workers. Will Hutton's "The World We're
In"

And yet their economies are growing much slower.

At which particular instant? Name your date and the corresponding
growth figures.

other subjects, and paints a picture of the U.S.A. that doesn't fit
with what you were taught in civics in primary school (which is now
long out of date).

Again, by definition you tell a lie-- you don't know what I was
taught in primary school or how long ago it was.

I don't know when you were in primary school, but you can't have got
the over-simplified clap-trap that you peddle any later in your
academic career, and what you peddle is clearly way past its sell-by
date.

I don't think that what I wrote can be characterised as a lie. You do
tend to to mis-parse sentences and describe your misintepretation as
a lie, which is not a nice way to behave.

On the contrary, you just make shit up and expect us to believe it.
Either that or you're getting it out of a book from a guy who made shit
up.

Or you don't know shit from Shinola. You claim that what I post is
wrong, but you have singularly failed to falsify any of my claims.

That makes you the bull-shitting liar.


Actually, every time you've made a falsifiable claim, I've disproven it.

Name one

Yes, you certainly could do with more factual knowledge. It would help
if some of what you though you knew were true.

I've been to Chile, you idiot. I've studied history.

If you've been to Chile, like you've studied history, you could have
saved your emploer the air-fare.

All you have are assertions and you never back them up.

I made an assertion about India's rate of economic growth, and backed
it up, and you failed to read the URL. Wasted effort.

It is time for you to put up, and start citing some real facts. Notice
your idiot author does not back up his claims. Gee, I wonder why that
is?

Which of my authors are you refering to?

Put up, or be ignored.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I've at least quoted some
authorities. You've quoted none.

Two lies in two sentences, about par for the course.

You are a mere shell of a debater, with absolutely no substance. Your
idea of a counter-argument is to call me a liar, without a shred of
supporting evidence. You don't even qualify as a troll.


When you discover what an argument is and start making one, you'll be
worth responding to.

So far, all you have are assertions, and a complete ignorance of history.

I don't understand your idea of history - there seems to be lot
missing.

Though your statements about etherenet are, at least, amusing.

See if you can amuse me by answering the question about the original
Xerox/DEC specification then, if you are such an expert.

-----
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Mark Zenier]

In article <vu8rgvcjqajq233tl39g39kf8ioq1e3aev@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speff@interlog.com> wrote:

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:47:00 GMT, the renowned mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark
Zenier) wrote:

I think he's talking to the ghost of Spiro "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"
Agnew, not you.

Ah, of course, and I say that with some *certitude* (with deference to
Howard).

Howard Who?

Mark Zenier mzenier@eskimo.com Washington State resident

 

[Mindwipe]

thanx
<jason@eg3.com> wrote in message
news:sci/electronics-search-faq_1057920042@rtfm.mit.edu...

Archive-name: sci/electronics-search-faq

Electronics Search FAQ - POINTER
http://www.eetoolbox.com/search/index.htm
http://www.cera2.com/search/index.htm
http://www.eg3.com/search/index.htm

Finding Electronic Design Information On The Internet
1998.09.15
------------------------------------------------------------

This FAQ focuses on sources of information useful for electronics
and electronics design. It lists meta resources such as EE search
engines, FAQ's, Web resources, FTP sites, publications, trade
shows, and conferences. It identifies all major EE publications,
and it explains how to use the Internet as a tool for practical
electronic design. Please email suggestions to comments@eg3.com.
Thanks!

------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS:
ALL include active WWW links to the relevant resource

* GENERAL SEARCH OVERVIEWS

* THE BIG THREE
-- FAQ's and Technical Reports: Finding Them
-- USENET: Searching for Groups and Searching USENET
-- World Wide Web: Major Search Engines

* OTHER REALLY IMPORTANT EE RESOURCES
-- Conferences: Locating Conferences on EE Subjects
-- FTP Sites: Finding Source Code and Software
-- Mailing Lists
-- Publications: Major EE Publications & Web Resources
-- Smart Semiconductor Search: NEW Search Engine, Searching
ALL major (embedded) chip vendors

* MERITORIOUS EE SEARCH RESOURCES
-- Books, Libraries, Bookstores, etc.
-- DSP Resources
-- EE Hunter: One Interface/Multiple EE Search Engines
-- Embedded Systems Index
-- Industrial Embedded Computing
-- Microcontroller/processor Internet Index
-- Miscellaneous but Meritorious Search Tools
-- News and Sources for EE Related News
-- Realtime and Software Development
-- VTS Buyers' Guides by Topic Area

* INTERNET RESOURCE PAGES
-- Artificial Intelligence
-- Ada
-- Assembly
-- Books
-- C Language
-- C++
-- (Tele)Communications
-- Compilers
-- DOS/Windows
-- Employment
-- Emulators
-- Engineering
-- FAQ's/Tech Rpts.
-- Forth
-- FTP Sites
-- Mailing Lists
-- Networking
-- News
-- Object-Oriented
-- Publications
-- Robotics
-- Shareware
-- Software Eng.
-- USENET
-- WWW Search Engines
-- 411 Marketplace
-- Windows/DOS

 

[CWatters]

"FEerguy9" <feerguy9@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030711013635.14767.00000164@mb-m07.news.cs.com...

I had neither unification theory nor multiple dimensions in mind.
Further, I
do not see why you brought them up.

If extra dimension exist then they extreemly tightly curled up (or we would
be able to detect them easily) so I guess you might be able make (something
like) a capacitor that stores (something like) charge in these extra
dimensions. Perhaps that might be a way round the problem that the breakdown
voltage is proportional to plate seperatiion - after all it's quite possible
for objects to be close together in some dimensions yet far apart in others.

Plain and simple - I am talking about the space betweer the surface of a
capacitor plate, and the molecular level.

Perhaps you made a typo and meant "_at_ the molecular level"?.. but thats
also confusing. Every space exists "at the molecular level" even large
spaces. It would be better to use SI units.

If you are talking about reducing the plate seperation until it's less than
a molecule wide then that's something we can discuss...

A water molecule is about 3 x 10^-10 Meters wide (not that you would use
water obviously but it gives us sense of scale). How about using "Strontium
Titanate" ?. If I understand correctly that breaks down at about 8MV/M
(8,000,000 Volts per Meter). I don't know how big a Strontium Titanate
molecule is but lets assume it's the same size as a water molecule (it's
bigger) and that it still behaves like a dielectric in such thin layers
(unlikely)... we'll press on and make a capacitor with a plate seperation of
3 x 10^-10M. Having done that lets calculate what the max working voltage
would be....

Vmax = 8x10^6 x 3x10^-10 or about 24x10-4 = 2.4mV.

If you charge your capacitor beyond 2.4 milivolt the dielectric will fail.
Oh dear not going to be much use is it?

Let's ignore that and the fact that things behave differently at the Quantum
scale... If the gap was reduced further you wouldn't be able to fit a
molecule of anything between the plates and you would have to use a vacuum.
That ok if you can keep the plates apart somehow? Lets reduce it further to
the atomic scale - say less than the diameter of a metal atom - At this
distance the plates are so close together that in effect they are one lump
of metal and electrons flow freely between them. eg our capacitor is now a
short circuit so that sets a lower limit.

Now what seperation do you propose exactly?

 

[DarkMatter]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:09:15 GMT, "Brandon Berg" <bberg@cesmail.net>
Gave us:

"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0307091520.14df2702@posting.google.com...

It would be helpful to learn what thread you are posting about!

He was obviously referring to this thread. But you just had to go and keep
it alive anyway.

You are an idiot. For one thing, you don't know how to post

properly in usenet.

Number two: Not everyone reads usenet posts in the same way you do,
thread boy.

Number three: When you change the header of a post, it is no longer
part of the "thread", YOU started a NEW thread, ya ditz.

Most folks read chronologically. I don't need or shouldn't need to
re-sort my post headers just to see what you are babbling about.

You are so clueless, in fact, that you make an overltly long thread
look like normalcy. It is, actually. You are the abnormality.

Then you did it again with this post. So now we have a lame thread
where we discuss weather long threads are lame, or the idiot twit that
started a new thread pissing and moaning about them.

Bone up on usenet, ya little idiots. Your complaining post was, and
still is WHACK. It is up to YOU, now, to step to the pump, and get up
to speed with the rest of the world, which was, until your lame asses
wussied in, doing just fine.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:15:00 GMT, the renowned mzenier@eskimo.com
(Mark Zenier) wrote:

In article <vu8rgvcjqajq233tl39g39kf8ioq1e3aev@4ax.com>,
Spehro Pefhany <speff@interlog.com> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 18:47:00 GMT, the renowned mzenier@eskimo.com (Mark
Zenier) wrote:

I think he's talking to the ghost of Spiro "Nattering Nabobs of Negativism"
Agnew, not you.

Ah, of course, and I say that with some *certitude* (with deference to
Howard).

Howard Who?

The ghost of Howard Cosell.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Brandon Berg]

"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:sai0hv8l5d9m3i2mn8976n8gl2jr2p9nhi@4ax.com...

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:09:15 GMT, "Brandon Berg" <bberg@cesmail.net
Gave us:


"Harry Conover" <hhc314@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7ce4e226.0307091520.14df2702@posting.google.com...

It would be helpful to learn what thread you are posting about!

He was obviously referring to this thread. But you just had to go and
keep
it alive anyway.

You are an idiot. For one thing, you don't know how to post
properly in usenet.

Number two: Not everyone reads usenet posts in the same way you do,
thread boy.

Number three: When you change the header of a post, it is no longer
part of the "thread", YOU started a NEW thread, ya ditz.

Whoooosh!

<Makes appropriate gesture>