OT: Goodbye to the American Dream

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:30:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:


>For the record, I am designing electronics (if not at this instant) and hope eventually to have a design that's worth publishing. John Larkin's "design" cycle takes two weeks on average. Mine has always been several years, and it seems to have slowed down as I've got older, and more aware of how complicated the the process can be.

---
Age, and its attending misunderstanding, befuddles.

Larkin clearly has a lead which you can't, in your wildest dreams,
compete against, so your begrudging his technical acumen smacks of the
green-eyed monster.

John Fields
 
On Saturday, 5 September 2015 03:45:43 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:40:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
dcaster@krl.org> wrote:
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 8:49:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

I couldn't care less about his personal details, but he did seem to know very little about how bank worked.

Yet I noticed that you changed your statements about how banks work after I pointed out that you were wrong.

Not that he doesn't specify how I changed my statements, and how the changes amount to an admission of error - I'm fairly sure that what I wrote expanded on my original points, rather than changing them. Dca doesn't seem to be all that clever, and I can imagine that he's suffering from imperfect comprehension.
You can play the insult game endlessly with Sloman. If he enjoys
anything in life, it's issuing pompous insults.

Not really. I get my pleasure from the squeals of those I insult.

> Note that he has little say about electronics.

Nothing much that John Larkin can follow.

> Ignore him and everybody will benefit.

When I last looked, John Larkin was the most prolific poster here, and Jim Thompson a close second. Jim Thompson occasionally offer interesting technical content, John Larkin limits himself to posting his latest bodged job.

Do I really need to know that John Larkin has a four-wheel-drive Audi and uses it to go up above the snow-line, so that he can ski?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:22:46 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:30:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:


For the record, I am designing electronics (if not at this instant) and hope eventually to have a design that's worth publishing. John Larkin's "design" cycle takes two weeks on average. Mine has always been several years, and it seems to have slowed down as I've got older, and more aware of how complicated the the process can be.

---
Age, and its attending misunderstanding, befuddles.

Larkin clearly has a lead which you can't, in your wildest dreams,
compete against, so your begrudging his technical acumen smacks of the
green-eyed monster.

John Fields

Designing electronics is fairly easy, with an occasional interesting
challenge. So far, it seems to keep getting easier.

The really hard part is deciding what to design.
 
On 9/3/2015 4:25 AM, John Doe wrote:
It's not just thanks to Obama. And it's worse than just losing the American
dream. There is a distinct possibility that our civilization is going to
collapse within 50 years or so. No more partisan politics. We're likely to
take much of the rest of the world with us too, so spectators shouldn't be
cheering. It's going to be a horrible place to die in.

Who exactly is "we"? Which civilization is "ours" that there will be
someone else watching?

--

Rick
 
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:22:46 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

Age, and its attending misunderstanding, befuddles.

Larkin clearly has a lead which you can't, in your wildest dreams,
compete against, so your begrudging his technical acumen smacks of the
green-eyed monster.

John Fields

Hey John... did you ever give a gander to that TV show I mentioned to
you?

I have a new one now I like about NYC cops in the mid sixties...
"Public Morals" (TNT network)
 
On Saturday, 5 September 2015 07:22:58 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:30:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:


For the record, I am designing electronics (if not at this instant) and hope eventually to have a design that's worth publishing. John Larkin's "design" cycle takes two weeks on average. Mine has always been several years, and it seems to have slowed down as I've got older, and more aware of how complicated the the process can be.

Age, and its attending misunderstanding, befuddles.

I suspect that you were somewhat befuddled before you got old, otherwise you wouldn't be quite so besotted with the NE555.

Larkin clearly has a lead which you can't, in your wildest dreams,
compete against, so your begrudging his technical acumen smacks of the
green-eyed monster.

John Larkin has clearly sold a lot more items. Basically, he sells bespoke electronics to physicists - and my publication history in Rev. Sci. Instrum.. makes it clear that Phil Hobbs isn't a typical physicist.

So he's leading on quantity. I have reservations about the quality of his offerings. I'm sure they do exactly what the customers want, but better customers would have wanted more, and somebody with more technical smarts that John Larkin would probably have delivered more, even though his customers didn't actively demand it.

I'm sure that you have got an opinion on the quality issue,but save it - it isn't going to be worth posting.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Saturday, 5 September 2015 07:37:18 UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 04 Sep 2015 16:22:46 -0500, John Fields
jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 20:30:16 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:


For the record, I am designing electronics (if not at this instant) and hope eventually to have a design that's worth publishing. John Larkin's "design" cycle takes two weeks on average. Mine has always been several years, and it seems to have slowed down as I've got older, and more aware of how complicated the the process can be.

---
Age, and its attending misunderstanding, befuddles.

Larkin clearly has a lead which you can't, in your wildest dreams,
compete against, so your begrudging his technical acumen smacks of the
green-eyed monster.

John Fields

Designing electronics is fairly easy, with an occasional interesting
challenge. So far, it seems to keep getting easier.

The really hard part is deciding what to design.

That's what you've got customers for.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Saturday, 5 September 2015 07:42:59 UTC+10, rickman wrote:
On 9/3/2015 4:25 AM, John Doe wrote:
It's not just thanks to Obama. And it's worse than just losing the American
dream. There is a distinct possibility that our civilization is going to
collapse within 50 years or so. No more partisan politics. We're likely to
take much of the rest of the world with us too, so spectators shouldn't be
cheering. It's going to be a horrible place to die in.

Who exactly is "we"? Which civilization is "ours" that there will be
someone else watching?

"We" would probably be the US - "John Doe" is an American formation. People from the England or Australia would call themselves "John Smith" to create the same effect.

The "civilisation" referred to would seem to be the advanced industrial society that - while pioneered in Europe - was taken up on a very large scale in the US to an extent that makes the US version the one usually copied.

It does depend on burning a lot of fossil carbon, and venting the CO2 producted to the atmosphere, which doesn't happen to be a sustainable activity for much more than 50 years at the current (progressively increasing) rate.

The US isn't exactly leading the world to in the transition to a more sustainable economy, and it's currently responsible for about 25% of all the CO2 getting into the atmosphere, so it owns a lot of the problem.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On 9/8/2015 11:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
It does depend on burning a lot of fossil carbon, and venting the CO2 producted to the atmosphere, which doesn't happen to be a sustainable activity for much more than 50 years at the current (progressively increasing) rate.

Wow! That just resonated with me and I came up with a brainstorm. To
solve the carbon problem, we can combine the idea of a space elevator
with a smokestack and ship our excess CO2 into space!

At some height, the net influence of centrifugal force while maintaining
geostationary position will create a force pulling upward... to a higher
orbit. I expect this would be something above the orbit of
geostationary satellites.

If a chimney were constructed taller than this, the hot flue gasses
would rise up and into space never to bother earth again... allowing us
to burn all the coal, oil and natural gas we want without affecting the
earth's environment... So, how is that space elevator project coming
again? Maybe we can use a chimney tall enough to get slightly above low
earth orbit?

Oh yeah, one small question. Where do we get the O2 to pair with the C?
I guess there are lots of oxides found on earth. If we use energy to
release the O2 while burning C with the O2 to get the energy... will
this even break even?

Maybe we can all wear space suits and only generate enough O2 to breath?
Would that be easier? How long with Earth's free O2 supply last if
we burn it without replenishing the supply? It's got to be long enough
for John to drive to Truckee in the family Belchfire 2000 one more time.
:)

Does everyone find this approach agreeable? The greenies prevent global
warming and the... what's the other camp called?... get to drive
whatever they want for the foreseeable future. What's a few oxygen
tanks among friends? Everest is littered with them!

--

Rick
 
On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 04:08:20 UTC+10, rickman wrote:
On 9/8/2015 11:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

It does depend on burning a lot of fossil carbon, and venting the CO2 produced to the atmosphere, which doesn't happen to be a sustainable activity for much more than 50 years at the current (progressively increasing) rate.

Wow! That just resonated with me and I came up with a brainstorm. To
solve the carbon problem, we can combine the idea of a space elevator
with a smokestack and ship our excess CO2 into space!

At some height, the net influence of centrifugal force while maintaining
geostationary position will create a force pulling upward... to a higher
orbit. I expect this would be something above the orbit of
geostationary satellites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

Roughly twice the height of the geostationary orbit.

If a chimney were constructed taller than this, the hot flue gasses
would rise up and into space never to bother earth again... allowing us
to burn all the coal, oil and natural gas we want without affecting the
earth's environment... So, how is that space elevator project coming
again? Maybe we can use a chimney tall enough to get slightly above low
earth orbit?

Oh yeah, one small question. Where do we get the O2 to pair with the C?
I guess there are lots of oxides found on earth. If we use energy to
release the O2 while burning C with the O2 to get the energy... will
this even break even?

There's a lot of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere, and - relatively speaking - not a lot of fossil carbon to dig up. Raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from 270ppm at the start of the Industrial Revolution to it's current 400ppm has produced a measurable - but very small drop in the atmospheric O2 level.

20.95% O2 is 209,500 ppm. What we've done so far has knocked that back by less than 0.05%.

<snip>

Does everyone find this approach agreeable? The greenies prevent global
warming and the... what's the other camp called?... get to drive
whatever they want for the foreseeable future. What's a few oxygen
tanks among friends? Everest is littered with them!

The technical and economic problems of building the smoke-stack (out of carbon nanotubes, or nanodiamond fibres) are considerable. You've then got to concetrate the CO2 and deliver it to the base of the smokestack.

It would be cheaper, and just as effective, to pump it down into the deeper bits of the ocean. It's probably even cheaper to stop burning fossil carbon and build solar farms in places like the Sahara, Arizona and the Great Australian Desert. By the time we've built enough of them to supply our energy needs the economies of scale will have made them cheaper than digging up and burning fossil carbon, and the sun is going to keep shining at roughly it's current level for the five billion years - after which time we'll have to start thinking about moving earth further away from a sun which will be getting both bigger and brighter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 11:37:49 UTC+10, rickman wrote:
On 9/2/2015 11:43 AM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:13:11 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


I don't have to - I assume that I'm interacting with people who are in the habit of inferring cause from effect. James Arthur refuses to succumb to this confusion of correlation with causation - his Tea Party friends would stop talking to him if he did something that revealed him as inadequately indoctrinated - but most people feel free to use their common sense.

i do not happen to believe your cause and effect. So while you do not have to explain , not doing so lower your credibility.

If the economy had not been stimulated, at some point it would have recovered anyway.

But it was stimulated from 1933 on, and did recover.

Unfortunately we have no way of running various scenarios and seeing what would have happened.

Sure. It's a great pity that the experiment wasn't allowed to run it's course.
Of course, Germany might then have won WW2, so I'm happy enough with the real world outcome.

I'm not sure which region of cloud-cuckoo-land you are talking about, but you are vying with Jim Thompson for being out of touch with reality, and with Sarah Palin for being in touch with your inner reactionary.

Why use logic when you can slander.

Nothing slanderous about that. James Arthur admires Sarah Palin, even if I don't. I can scarcely be blamed for exposing James Arthur to hatred, ridicule and contempt when he's posting ridiculously contemptible nonsense, designed to win him popularity with right-wing nitwits

Well I think it is slanderous and I suspect most of the readers here feel the same.

Dan

Yeah, I think that is one reputation down the drain.

If Dan had a reputation here it was as a right-wing nitwit, and he's no further down the drain than he ever was. James Arthur is brighter, but he turns off his intelligence when it comes to sponsoring idiocies that suit his point of view, so he's had much the same kind of reputation here for some time now.

Jim Thompson reported me to the FBI for having dangerously anti-American ideas. He's apparently rich enough that they didn't ridicule him at the time, but it did reinforce his status as Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson.

I don't think that anybody's reputation will have been significantly influenced by the most recent fracas.

James Arthur's posting of an even more bogus than usual link

http://www.hoover.org/research/stimulus-and-depression-untold-story

should - in theory - have damaged his reputation, but in terms of believing six impossible right-wing things before breakfast, this was just business as usual.

"The Federal Reserve Board's Index of Industrial production" does seem to be one of those bogus statistics that right-wing nitwits love. It's certainly not the index of industrial production posted on the Wikipedia Great Depression web-site, which doesn't tell the same story, and the fact that the www.hoover.org web-site doesn't actually post a link to their favourite index is informative enough.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On 9/2/2015 11:43 AM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:13:11 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


I don't have to - I assume that I'm interacting with people who are in the habit of inferring cause from effect. James Arthur refuses to succumb to this confusion of correlation with causation - his Tea Party friends would stop talking to him if he did something that revealed him as inadequately indoctrinated - but most people feel free to use their common sense.

i do not happen to believe your cause and effect. So while you do not have to explain , not doing so lower your credibility.

If the economy had not been stimulated, at some point it would have recovered anyway.

But it was stimulated from 1933 on, and did recover.

Unfortunately we have no way of running various scenarios and seeing what would have happened.

Sure. It's a great pity that the experiment wasn't allowed to run it's course.
Of course, Germany might then have won WW2, so I'm happy enough with the real world outcome.

I'm not sure which region of cloud-cuckoo-land you are talking about, but you are vying with Jim Thompson for being out of touch with reality, and with Sarah Palin for being in touch with your inner reactionary.

Why use logic when you can slander.

Nothing slanderous about that. James Arthur admires Sarah Palin, even if I don't. I can scarcely be blamed for exposing James Arthur to hatred, ridicule and contempt when he's posting ridiculously contemptible nonsense, designed to win him popularity with right-wing nitwits

Well I think it is slanderous and I suspect most of the readers here feel the same.

Dan

Yeah, I think that is one reputation down the drain.

--

Rick
 
On 9/8/2015 9:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 04:08:20 UTC+10, rickman wrote:
On 9/8/2015 11:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

It does depend on burning a lot of fossil carbon, and venting the CO2 produced to the atmosphere, which doesn't happen to be a sustainable activity for much more than 50 years at the current (progressively increasing) rate.

Wow! That just resonated with me and I came up with a brainstorm. To
solve the carbon problem, we can combine the idea of a space elevator
with a smokestack and ship our excess CO2 into space!

At some height, the net influence of centrifugal force while maintaining
geostationary position will create a force pulling upward... to a higher
orbit. I expect this would be something above the orbit of
geostationary satellites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

Roughly twice the height of the geostationary orbit.

If a chimney were constructed taller than this, the hot flue gasses
would rise up and into space never to bother earth again... allowing us
to burn all the coal, oil and natural gas we want without affecting the
earth's environment... So, how is that space elevator project coming
again? Maybe we can use a chimney tall enough to get slightly above low
earth orbit?

Oh yeah, one small question. Where do we get the O2 to pair with the C?
I guess there are lots of oxides found on earth. If we use energy to
release the O2 while burning C with the O2 to get the energy... will
this even break even?

There's a lot of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere, and - relatively speaking - not a lot of fossil carbon to dig up. Raising the CO2 level in the atmosphere from 270ppm at the start of the Industrial Revolution to it's current 400ppm has produced a measurable - but very small drop in the atmospheric O2 level.

20.95% O2 is 209,500 ppm. What we've done so far has knocked that back by less than 0.05%.

snip

Does everyone find this approach agreeable? The greenies prevent global
warming and the... what's the other camp called?... get to drive
whatever they want for the foreseeable future. What's a few oxygen
tanks among friends? Everest is littered with them!

The technical and economic problems of building the smoke-stack (out of carbon nanotubes, or nanodiamond fibres) are considerable. You've then got to concetrate the CO2 and deliver it to the base of the smokestack.

It would be cheaper, and just as effective, to pump it down into the deeper bits of the ocean. It's probably even cheaper to stop burning fossil carbon and build solar farms in places like the Sahara, Arizona and the Great Australian Desert. By the time we've built enough of them to supply our energy needs the economies of scale will have made them cheaper than digging up and burning fossil carbon, and the sun is going to keep shining at roughly it's current level for the five billion years - after which time we'll have to start thinking about moving earth further away from a sun which will be getting both bigger and brighter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant

--

Rick
 
On 9/8/2015 9:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 04:08:20 UTC+10, rickman wrote:
On 9/8/2015 11:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

It does depend on burning a lot of fossil carbon, and venting the
CO2 produced to the atmosphere, which doesn't happen to be a
sustainable activity for much more than 50 years at the current
(progressively increasing) rate.

Wow! That just resonated with me and I came up with a brainstorm.
To solve the carbon problem, we can combine the idea of a space
elevator with a smokestack and ship our excess CO2 into space!

At some height, the net influence of centrifugal force while
maintaining geostationary position will create a force pulling
upward... to a higher orbit. I expect this would be something
above the orbit of geostationary satellites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

Roughly twice the height of the geostationary orbit.

That would be to achieve a balance in the total centrifugal force and
the total gravitational force. I suppose something has to hold the
chimney up, but just reaching geostationary orbit is good enough to keep
the CO2 from falling back to earth. Anything beyond the geostationary
orbit will make the CO2 leave earth orbit. Although I suppose such a
gas may have diffusion and an additional boost enough to prevent *any*
of it from falling back would be needed. But at that altitude, it would
be rather cold and at very low pressure, so likely not much is needed.


If a chimney were constructed taller than this, the hot flue
gasses would rise up and into space never to bother earth again...
allowing us to burn all the coal, oil and natural gas we want
without affecting the earth's environment... So, how is that space
elevator project coming again? Maybe we can use a chimney tall
enough to get slightly above low earth orbit?

Oh yeah, one small question. Where do we get the O2 to pair with
the C? I guess there are lots of oxides found on earth. If we use
energy to release the O2 while burning C with the O2 to get the
energy... will this even break even?

There's a lot of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere, and - relatively
speaking - not a lot of fossil carbon to dig up. Raising the CO2
level in the atmosphere from 270ppm at the start of the Industrial
Revolution to it's current 400ppm has produced a measurable - but
very small drop in the atmospheric O2 level.

20.95% O2 is 209,500 ppm. What we've done so far has knocked that
back by less than 0.05%.

I think you under estimate the significance of this with time. We are
not *reducing* the rate of CO2 generation, we are *increasing* it. I
would expect the amounts involved to be on an exponential growth curve
just like a population.

In fact, when bacteria are colonized on a petri dish, they end up dying,
not because they have eaten all the food, but because they poison their
environment.


Does everyone find this approach agreeable? The greenies prevent
global warming and the... what's the other camp called?... get to
drive whatever they want for the foreseeable future. What's a few
oxygen tanks among friends? Everest is littered with them!

The technical and economic problems of building the smoke-stack (out
of carbon nanotubes, or nanodiamond fibres) are considerable. You've
then got to concetrate the CO2 and deliver it to the base of the
smokestack.

Details, details... Don't bother me with details...


It would be cheaper, and just as effective, to pump it down into the
deeper bits of the ocean. It's probably even cheaper to stop burning
fossil carbon and build solar farms in places like the Sahara,
Arizona and the Great Australian Desert. By the time we've built
enough of them to supply our energy needs the economies of scale will
have made them cheaper than digging up and burning fossil carbon, and
the sun is going to keep shining at roughly it's current level for
the five billion years - after which time we'll have to start
thinking about moving earth further away from a sun which will be
getting both bigger and brighter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant

--

Rick
 
On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 16:16:47 UTC+10, rickman wrote:
On 9/8/2015 9:33 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 04:08:20 UTC+10, rickman wrote:
On 9/8/2015 11:45 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:

It does depend on burning a lot of fossil carbon, and venting the
CO2 produced to the atmosphere, which doesn't happen to be a
sustainable activity for much more than 50 years at the current
(progressively increasing) rate.

Wow! That just resonated with me and I came up with a brainstorm.
To solve the carbon problem, we can combine the idea of a space
elevator with a smokestack and ship our excess CO2 into space!

At some height, the net influence of centrifugal force while
maintaining geostationary position will create a force pulling
upward... to a higher orbit. I expect this would be something
above the orbit of geostationary satellites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

Roughly twice the height of the geostationary orbit.

That would be to achieve a balance in the total centrifugal force and
the total gravitational force. I suppose something has to hold the
chimney up, but just reaching geostationary orbit is good enough to keep
the CO2 from falling back to earth. Anything beyond the geostationary
orbit will make the CO2 leave earth orbit. Although I suppose such a
gas may have diffusion and an additional boost enough to prevent *any*
of it from falling back would be needed. But at that altitude, it would
be rather cold and at very low pressure, so likely not much is needed.


If a chimney were constructed taller than this, the hot flue
gasses would rise up and into space never to bother earth again...
allowing us to burn all the coal, oil and natural gas we want
without affecting the earth's environment... So, how is that space
elevator project coming again? Maybe we can use a chimney tall
enough to get slightly above low earth orbit?

Oh yeah, one small question. Where do we get the O2 to pair with
the C? I guess there are lots of oxides found on earth. If we use
energy to release the O2 while burning C with the O2 to get the
energy... will this even break even?

There's a lot of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere, and - relatively
speaking - not a lot of fossil carbon to dig up. Raising the CO2
level in the atmosphere from 270ppm at the start of the Industrial
Revolution to it's current 400ppm has produced a measurable - but
very small drop in the atmospheric O2 level.

20.95% O2 is 209,500 ppm. What we've done so far has knocked that
back by less than 0.05%.

I think you under estimate the significance of this with time. We are
not *reducing* the rate of CO2 generation, we are *increasing* it. I
would expect the amounts involved to be on an exponential growth curve
just like a population.

There's only a finite amount of fossil carbon that could be dug up and burnt.
It's enough to produce serious anthropogenic global warming, but nowhere near enough to put a dent in the oxygen content of the atmosphere - nothing comparable with doing a bit of mountain climbing.

In fact, when bacteria are colonized on a petri dish, they end up dying,
not because they have eaten all the food, but because they poison their
environment.

That's sort of what enough anthropogenic global warming will do for us. It won't actually poison anybody, but with enough warming agriculture won't work the way it's been working for the past few thousand years, which should be good for a population crash.

Does everyone find this approach agreeable? The greenies prevent
global warming and the... what's the other camp called?... get to
drive whatever they want for the foreseeable future. What's a few
oxygen tanks among friends? Everest is littered with them!

The technical and economic problems of building the smoke-stack (out
of carbon nanotubes, or nanodiamond fibres) are considerable. You've
then got to concetrate the CO2 and deliver it to the base of the
smokestack.

Details, details... Don't bother me with details...

Sadly, that's where the devil is.

It would be cheaper, and just as effective, to pump it down into the
deeper bits of the ocean.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 16:43:01 UTC+10, rickman wrote:
On 9/8/2015 10:53 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Jim Thompson reported me to the FBI for having dangerously
anti-American ideas. He's apparently rich enough that they didn't
ridicule him at the time, but it did reinforce his status as
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson.

Whaaaa? Is this for real? "having dangerously anti-American ideas"
sounds like something from the McCarty era. My GOD!

You are making this up, right?

Nope. Jim boasted about it here at the time, and a few years later, when I was raking up his collected absurdities, he was silly enough to admit it again.

I'd really like to satirise Jim, but my imagination isn't up to finding something really absurd that he hasn't already done.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
On 9/8/2015 10:53 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
Jim Thompson reported me to the FBI for having dangerously
anti-American ideas. He's apparently rich enough that they didn't
ridicule him at the time, but it did reinforce his status as
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson.

Whaaaa? Is this for real? "having dangerously anti-American ideas"
sounds like something from the McCarty era. My GOD!

You are making this up, right?

--

Rick
 
On 09/09/2015 07:42, rickman wrote:
On 9/8/2015 10:53 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Jim Thompson reported me to the FBI for having dangerously
anti-American ideas. He's apparently rich enough that they didn't
ridicule him at the time, but it did reinforce his status as
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson.

Whaaaa? Is this for real? "having dangerously anti-American ideas"
sounds like something from the McCarty era. My GOD!

JT *is* from the McCarthy era.

> You are making this up, right?

It is genuine. ISTR "OT: Atheist Joke Thread" in about 2006.

Keywords "Jim Thompson Anti-American FBI ICE" in Google Groups.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
 
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 02:42:49 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> Gave us:

On 9/8/2015 10:53 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Jim Thompson reported me to the FBI for having dangerously
anti-American ideas. He's apparently rich enough that they didn't
ridicule him at the time, but it did reinforce his status as
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson.

Whaaaa? Is this for real? "having dangerously anti-American ideas"
sounds like something from the McCarty era. My GOD!

You are making this up, right?

The other day I gave the asshole likely the best advice he has gotten
in years, yet he is too stupid to have seen it.

The new 4K displays are the best PC upgrade anyone can do. Everything
is nice and crisp and bright compared to the 24" decade ago series.
Though he is probably too dumb to even be at the 24" level.. The dopey,
drunken bastard probably still uses a 10" CRT. Oh wait.... that's the
Terrell retard. JT likely has a 22" or 24" because the old fart is
probably nearly blind from the wine and all the fuming he does from his
various stench oozing orifices.

The 28" one I posted a link to is a good bargain. He probably can't
see worth a shit, especially after he cooks with wine.

The last guy I upgraded with it was so impressed, he bought a second
one for his desktop, although one has to have a pretty good sized desk
to do that. I only need one.

Truly though. The 28" 4K displays are the best upgrade ANY of you
could do.
 
On Wednesday, September 9, 2015 at 3:34:24 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 September 2015 16:43:01 UTC+10, rickman wrote:
On 9/8/2015 10:53 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:

Jim Thompson reported me to the FBI for having dangerously
anti-American ideas. He's apparently rich enough that they didn't
ridicule him at the time, but it did reinforce his status as
Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson.

Whaaaa? Is this for real? "having dangerously anti-American ideas"
sounds like something from the McCarty era. My GOD!

You are making this up, right?

Nope. Jim boasted about it here at the time, and a few years later, when I was raking up his collected absurdities, he was silly enough to admit it again.

I'd really like to satirise Jim, but my imagination isn't up to finding something really absurd that he hasn't already done.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

As far as Bill is concerned it is fact. But then Bill is not very perceptive. For one he thinks I am a right wing nitwit even after I told him that I do not say much about myself.

But as far as I can tell the only thing that makes Bill believe that Jim reported him to some friends at the FBI is that Jim said so. So is anyone else gullible enough to accept statements on SED as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Dan
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top