need a cheap student edition FPGA

On Wed, 05 May 2010 17:10:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

That's as believable as oTTo's imaginary 875.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but it is logically true nonetheless.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
 
On Thu, 06 May 2010 13:30:29 +1000, Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au>
wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2010 17:10:32 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

That's as believable as oTTo's imaginary 875.

Maybe, but it is logically true nonetheless.
Click to expand...
The fact that your claim of a score of pi followed a false premise, sure.
 
No cluons were harmed when Hatunen wrote:
As originally designed, a score of 500 on a test section was the
average, while each 100 above or below represented a standard
deviation.
Click to expand...
While it may be true, I see no reason to call oTTo a deviant. Sheesh!


Mark Edwards
--
Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
 
On Wed, 05 May 2010 23:35:30 -0500, Mark Edwards
<Mark-Edwards@comcast.net> wrote:

No cluons were harmed when Hatunen wrote:
As originally designed, a score of 500 on a test section was the
average, while each 100 above or below represented a standard
deviation.

While it may be true, I see no reason to call oTTo a deviant. Sheesh!
Click to expand...
Deviate.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
 
Mark Edwards <Mark-Edwards@comcast.net> wrote:
No cluons were harmed when Hatunen wrote:
As originally designed, a score of 500 on a test section was the
average, while each 100 above or below represented a standard
deviation.

While it may be true, I see no reason to call oTTo a deviant. Sheesh!
Click to expand...
damn straight! let's see some adjectives in there. otherwise you're
just calling him a *plain* deviant, and them's fightin' words.


butting

--
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~butting
[Pedestrians, noun:] people who have found somewhere to park the car.
-- Guy Chapman
 
On 5/6/2010 12:35 AM, Mark Edwards wrote:
No cluons were harmed when Hatunen wrote:
As originally designed, a score of 500 on a test section was the
average, while each 100 above or below represented a standard
deviation.

While it may be true, I see no reason to call oTTo a deviant. Sheesh!
Click to expand...
No reason in his statement, you mean.

Matthew
 
On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:18:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
<krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

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...
I didn't say I can't take criticism. I've taken far worse than those
jackasses' attempts at humor. I said I wondered whether they would do
the same to you.

BW
 
On Wed, 05 May 2010 22:25:56 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"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. ;-)


Some people are born with no sense of humor. Others had it
surgically removed. :(
Click to expand...
And some keep following shiny things back and forth through Usenet's
murky waters.

BW
 
<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...
I guess that's a retract, as there's no cite.

--Tedward
 
"Mark Edwards" <Mark-Edwards@comcast.net> wrote

As originally designed, a score of 500 on a test section was the
average, while each 100 above or below represented a standard
deviation.
Click to expand...
That's just plain silly. There's only three standard deviations above
average according to your logic...?

While it may be true, I see no reason to call oTTo a deviant. Sheesh!
Click to expand...
There are reasons. But I ain't tellin'.

--oTTo--
 
In article <v185u5lqrrdfh06bt03mgpm4vk1afroqf6@4ax.com>,
barbara@bookpro.com wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:18:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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:

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.

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. ;-)

I didn't say I can't take criticism. I've taken far worse than those
jackasses' attempts at humor. I said I wondered whether they would do
the same to you.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting he's an illiterate liar. Wait, is he the illiterate
liar? These attributions get confusing, and it's really hard to tell
just from context.

--
Sig available on request.

- Doctroid
 
barbara@bookpro.com wrote:
On Wed, 05 May 2010 22:25:56 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"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. ;-)


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

And some keep following shiny things back and forth through Usenet's
murky waters.
Click to expand...

Really? Then you should climb back on the short bus, and go back to
the nut hatch. Your doctors have some shiny new toys for you to play
with, wile they test more experimental drugs. They say you're the
perfect Guinea Pig, other than the fact you shed more than the real
thing. :).


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
barbara@bookpro.com wrote:
On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:18:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

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. ;-)

I didn't say I can't take criticism. I've taken far worse than those
jackasses' attempts at humor. I said I wondered whether they would do
the same to you.
Click to expand...

No. You're new here, so people are taking it it easy on you. He's
had a lot worse treatment, but then he can dish it out without calling
people a jackass.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.
 
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:27:31 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

barbara@bookpro.com wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:18:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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.

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. ;-)

I didn't say I can't take criticism. I've taken far worse than those
jackasses' attempts at humor. I said I wondered whether they would do
the same to you.


No. You're new here, so people are taking it it easy on you. He's
had a lot worse treatment, but then he can dish it out without calling
people a jackass.
Click to expand...
I'm so happy for him. I'm sure his shit doesn't stink as well. He is
truly blessed.

BW
 
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> 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. ;-)


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

And some keep following shiny things back and forth through Usenet's
murky waters.

Really?
Click to expand...
Really. The Ronco 875 popper, to be specific.

--oTTo--
 
On Thu, 06 May 2010 16:26:10 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

barbara@bookpro.com wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2010 22:25:56 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

"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. ;-)


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

And some keep following shiny things back and forth through Usenet's
murky waters.


Really? Then you should climb back on the short bus, and go back to
the nut hatch.
Click to expand...
I see you're not as highly developed as youresteemed buddy who doesn't
call people jackasses.

And as someone who continued to chase oTTo's lures for so long, you're
hardly an authority on things shiny.

BW
 
On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:13:55 -0400, Doctroid <doctroid@mailinator.com> wrote:

In article <v185u5lqrrdfh06bt03mgpm4vk1afroqf6@4ax.com>,
barbara@bookpro.com wrote:

On Wed, 05 May 2010 20:18:21 -0500, "krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"
krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

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:

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.

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. ;-)

I didn't say I can't take criticism. I've taken far worse than those
jackasses' attempts at humor. I said I wondered whether they would do
the same to you.

You're forgetting he's an illiterate liar. Wait, is he the illiterate
liar? These attributions get confusing, and it's really hard to tell
just from context.
Click to expand...
We didn't expect you interlopers to be able to follow a simple conversation.
 
On Thu, 6 May 2010 10:13:45 -0400, "Otto Bahn" <Ladybrrane@GroinToHell.com>
wrote:

"Mark Edwards" <Mark-Edwards@comcast.net> wrote

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

That's just plain silly. There's only three standard deviations above
average according to your logic...?
Click to expand...
We all know that logic isn't your strength. You needn't demonstrate your
single-digit IQ with every post.
While it may be true, I see no reason to call oTTo a deviant. Sheesh!

There are reasons. But I ain't tellin'.
Click to expand...
There's no need.
 
On Thu, 6 May 2010 10:05:32 -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.

I guess that's a retract, as there's no cite.
Click to expand...
Don't run away mad, liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top