need a cheap student edition FPGA

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
On Tue, 4 May 2010 18:21:17 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

"R H Draney" <dadoctah@spamcop.net> wrote

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Not only can't you read, but you're a liar, too.

Post proof or retract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT_test

Wikipedia is not a valid cite. Anyone can fake a web page.


Post proof or retract.

If "anyone can fake a web page", it is not possible to "post proof" by
your
definition....

Is the vowel of "cot" the same as the one of "caught"?...post proof of
your
answer, but links to audio files are not acceptable....

On the other hand, if it's just Wikipedia you have a problem with, here's
a page
from the SAT Testing Board's own site:

http://sat.collegeboard.com/scores/understanding-sat-scores

Note that the first text on the page other than headers and menus reads:

SAT scores are reported on a scale from 200-800

and that the second paragraph elaborates as:

SAT Subject Test scores are reported on a scale from 200-800

They are now, anyway. I wonder if the scale change from 900 to 800
was prompted by declining test scores?

No, the scale hasn't changed, liar.
Click to expand...


I bet otto took that test at least five times before all the scores
added up to 875.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
On Tue, 04 May 2010 22:40:55 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:

On Tue, 4 May 2010 18:21:17 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

"R H Draney" <dadoctah@spamcop.net> wrote

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Not only can't you read, but you're a liar, too.

Post proof or retract.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAT_test

Wikipedia is not a valid cite. Anyone can fake a web page.


Post proof or retract.

If "anyone can fake a web page", it is not possible to "post proof" by
your
definition....

Is the vowel of "cot" the same as the one of "caught"?...post proof of
your
answer, but links to audio files are not acceptable....

On the other hand, if it's just Wikipedia you have a problem with, here's
a page
from the SAT Testing Board's own site:

http://sat.collegeboard.com/scores/understanding-sat-scores

Note that the first text on the page other than headers and menus reads:

SAT scores are reported on a scale from 200-800

and that the second paragraph elaborates as:

SAT Subject Test scores are reported on a scale from 200-800

They are now, anyway. I wonder if the scale change from 900 to 800
was prompted by declining test scores?

No, the scale hasn't changed, liar.



I bet otto took that test at least five times before all the scores
added up to 875.
Click to expand...
Since there is 200 points for getting one's name right, this is a definite
possibility.
 
On Tue, 4 May 2010 10:28:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
<Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com> wrote:

"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

Anything follows from a false premise. So: when I took the SAT, I got
Click to expand...
a score of pi.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
 
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Not only can't you read, but you're a liar, too.

Post proof or retract.

--oTTo--

I already did, yesterday, proving once again that you're illiterate as
well as
being a liar.
Click to expand...
Logical fallacy. I can't be both.

--oTTo--
 
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

--oTTo--

I took them the same year you did, needle dick. The range for each test
was
indeed 200-800. What a liar.
Click to expand...
Speaking of liars, you suddenly remembered you took the test
in 1969? Yeah, I believe you.

--oTTo--
 
On Tue, 4 May 2010 10:28:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
<Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com> wrote:

"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what your point is but I took the SATs in January
1954, back before they were dumbed down.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
 
On May 5, 10:17 am, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...@GroinToHell.com> wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote





  You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you.  We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you?  When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

--oTTo--

I took them the same year you did, needle dick.  The range for each test
was
indeed 200-800.  What a liar.

Speaking of liars, you suddenly remembered you took the test
in 1969?  Yeah, I believe you.

--oTTo--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Click to expand...
Really. Nobody remembers anything from 1969
except cheap weed, loud music, and girls named
Mary with flowers in her hair.

Wait! <remembering>...

There was that dude with the green mustang.

Ok, that's about it. And the moon thing.

--
Mark
 
"Hatunen" <hatunen@cox.net> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

I'm not sure what your point is but I took the SATs in January
1954, back before they were dumbed down.
Click to expand...
My point is I scored 875.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Click to expand...
Are you under the delusion someone might "steal" what
you post?

--oTTo--
 
On Wed, 5 May 2010 15:46:56 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
<Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com> wrote:

"Hatunen" <hatunen@cox.net> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

I'm not sure what your point is but I took the SATs in January
1954, back before they were dumbed down.

My point is I scored 875.
Click to expand...
Ah, now I get you. Although there is no part of the test that
reports over 800, They do add two scores to get an overall (a
process seriousy flawed becaus of the probability curve used for
assigning the scores).

So did you take the two part test (I understand there are three
parts now)? If my combined score was 875, I sure wouldn't brag
about it. (My combined score was soemthing on the order of 1550).

As originally designed, a score of 500 on a test section was the
average, while each 100 above or below represented a standard
deviation.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Are you under the delusion someone might "steal" what
you post?
Click to expand...
Woosh...

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
 
On Wed, 5 May 2010 10:14:29 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com>
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Not only can't you read, but you're a liar, too.

Post proof or retract.

--oTTo--

I already did, yesterday, proving once again that you're illiterate as
well as
being a liar.

Logical fallacy. I can't be both.
Click to expand...
What a load of crap. Now you add stupid to being an illiterate liar. I guess
that works.
 
On Wed, 5 May 2010 10:17:19 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com>
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

--oTTo--

I took them the same year you did, needle dick. The range for each test
was
indeed 200-800. What a liar.

Speaking of liars, you suddenly remembered you took the test
in 1969? Yeah, I believe you.
Click to expand...
You really are a stupid liar. I certainly remember taking the SAT (three
times), as well as the ACT (twice), in 1969. I graduated high school in '70
and college in '74.
 
On Wed, 5 May 2010 08:02:24 -0700 (PDT), Mark <blueriverday@yahoo.com> wrote:

On May 5, 10:17 am, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrr...@GroinToHell.com> wrote:
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote





  You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you.  We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you?  When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

--oTTo--

I took them the same year you did, needle dick.  The range for each test
was
indeed 200-800.  What a liar.

Speaking of liars, you suddenly remembered you took the test
in 1969?  Yeah, I believe you.

--oTTo--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Really. Nobody remembers anything from 1969
except cheap weed, loud music, and girls named
Mary with flowers in her hair.
Click to expand...
Maybe you don't. I didn't do Mary.

Wait! <remembering>...

There was that dude with the green mustang.
Click to expand...
Sky blue 64-1/2. My brother.

Ok, that's about it. And the moon thing.
Click to expand...
Nah, streaking didn't start until the '70s.
 
On Wed, 05 May 2010 15:59:02 +1000, Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au>
wrote:

On Tue, 4 May 2010 10:28:16 -0400, "Otto Bahn"
Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com> wrote:

"Lewis" <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

Anything follows from a false premise. So: when I took the SAT, I got
a score of pi.
Click to expand...
That's as believable as oTTo's imaginary 875.
 
On Wed, 5 May 2010 15:46:56 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com>
wrote:

"Hatunen" <hatunen@cox.net> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

I'm not sure what your point is but I took the SATs in January
1954, back before they were dumbed down.

My point is I scored 875.
Click to expand...
....and you're a goddamned liar. The SAT has always had a range of 200-800.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Are you under the delusion someone might "steal" what
you post?
Click to expand...
Liars, thieves, same same.
 
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking
about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with
Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the
person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

I'm not sure what your point is but I took the SATs in January
1954, back before they were dumbed down.

My point is I scored 875.

...and you're a goddamned liar. The SAT has always had a range of
200-800.
Click to expand...
Post cite or retract. You can't even remember 1969.

--Tedward
 
On Wed, 5 May 2010 18:15:46 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com>
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking
about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with
Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the
person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

I'm not sure what your point is but I took the SATs in January
1954, back before they were dumbed down.

My point is I scored 875.

...and you're a goddamned liar. The SAT has always had a range of
200-800.

Post cite or retract. You can't even remember 1969.
Click to expand...
I did (and do), liar. You're the one claiming the extraordinary (SAT
). It's your duty to provide proof, liar.
Click to expand...
[*] A score exceeding 200 would be an extraordinary claim, for you.
 
On 5/5/2010 6:44 PM, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 5 May 2010 18:15:46 -0400, "Otto Bahn"<Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking
about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with
Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the
person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Did the scoring change? When I took the SATs the max score was 800. I
scored a freakishly even 680/710 if I recall correctly.

How old are you? When I took the SAT, most you were either
in diapers or just a gleam in your father's eye.

I'm not sure what your point is but I took the SATs in January
1954, back before they were dumbed down.

My point is I scored 875.

...and you're a goddamned liar. The SAT has always had a range of
200-800.

Post cite or retract. You can't even remember 1969.

I did (and do), liar. You're the one claiming the extraordinary (SAT
800[*]). It's your duty to provide proof, liar.

[*] A score exceeding 200 would be an extraordinary claim, for you.
Click to expand...
If you are so smart, tell us what YHBT means.

Matthew
 
On Wed, 05 May 2010 17:05:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 5 May 2010 10:14:29 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Not only can't you read, but you're a liar, too.

Post proof or retract.

--oTTo--

I already did, yesterday, proving once again that you're illiterate as
well as
being a liar.

Logical fallacy. I can't be both.

What a load of crap. Now you add stupid to being an illiterate liar. I guess
that works.
Click to expand...
I was asking why he couldn't be two things different things at once
way upthread, but I got criticized for it. It will be interesting to
see whether those condescending twits do the same to you.

BW
 
On Wed, 05 May 2010 19:53:40 -0400, barbara@bookpro.com wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2010 17:05:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

On Wed, 5 May 2010 10:14:29 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com
wrote:

krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote

You want to be a pain in my ass, but you're meerly irritating.

How strange that you think this is about you. We were talking about
oTTo.

That is indeed strange, because you've been conversing with Michael.
Most
would consider it good form to address your questions to the person
"it"
is
about, instead of a third party.

I'm a second, not third, party.

You can't read either.

That would explain how I scored 875 on my English SAT.

Not only can't you read, but you're a liar, too.

Post proof or retract.

--oTTo--

I already did, yesterday, proving once again that you're illiterate as
well as
being a liar.

Logical fallacy. I can't be both.

What a load of crap. Now you add stupid to being an illiterate liar. I guess
that works.

I was asking why he couldn't be two things different things at once
way upthread, but I got criticized for it. It will be interesting to
see whether those condescending twits do the same to you.
Click to expand...
I think someone (at least one) misunderstood. I don't think they were
criticizing you, rather elaborating or even having some fun. At least it
started out that way. ...or maybe *I* missed it. ;-)

In any case, the Usenet is a wild place. If you can't take the criticism, get
out of the kitchen. ;-)
 
"krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
I think someone (at least one) misunderstood. I don't think they were
criticizing you, rather elaborating or even having some fun. At least it
started out that way. ...or maybe *I* missed it. ;-)

In any case, the Usenet is a wild place. If you can't take the criticism, get
out of the kitchen. ;-)
Click to expand...

Some people are born with no sense of humor. Others had it
surgically removed. :(


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

http://www.flickr.com/photos/materrell/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top