Semi-OT: Killing RFID credit card?

[larwe]

On May 1, 11:32 am, "Kevin G. Rhoads" <kgrho...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

back to Gallimaufry (?sp). I hope you will recover soon from

How dare you post in c.a.e without a complete and encyclopedic
knowledge of Doctor Who? Knowledge of the Sylvester McCoy years is of
course optional, and any knowledge of the so-called followon products
after McCoy actually earns negative points; those new products are
mere merchandising with no hint or flavor of the Doctor Who mythos.

 

[Kevin G. Rhoads]

Your tone talks like the A Team flying in to fix it with a swagger, but if
you can't walk the walk, why bother?

I read your post. All your feed-back to me could be applied to what you
posted pretty much unchanged -- if I wanted to do that. Besides which
you offered pretty much no technical advice at all, just critiques (and
in my opinion, not very good ones -- you take my words out of context
and twist them to mean something else and then criticise that newly
created meaning, e.g., "The pulse coil gas ignitors put out a high
current, yet you say that capacitor based systems do not." No, I didn't
say that. I never mentioned gas ignitors. I never mentioned pulse
coils. You brought all of that yourself. Then you criticised the result.
You didn't respond to what I wrote, but some fantasy you created that
has perhaps a vague resemblance to my writing.)

As for assuming that I have stupidly ignored prior posts, I don't think
the evidence supports that. My news reader didn't show lots of other
replies when I replied. Of course, you, in your Gallimaufrean near-
omniscence, just missed that, I suppose.

If you (generic, not you in specific) WANT to read stupidity into a post,
you (still generic) can always find it. So, why do you (specific, not
generic) chose to do so?

I am not impressed by your criticism; I find most of it off base
and irrelevant. I do see, and thank you for pointing out, that
there were places I could have well been clearer. Perhaps I made
the assumption that all readers would have some ability at logic,
not to mention the ability to actually read what was written, both
are clearly mistakes for UseNet -- as you have made so abundantly
clear.

My apologies for stressing your understanding beyond what it could
deal with. I begin to understand how you could have lost your way
back to Gallimaufry (?sp). I hope you will recover soon from
whatever injury or illness so limited you to mere human levels.
Perhaps you will find your misplace Tardis, and return for the
medical treatment you need to return to your ordinary near-omniscience.
Since that beyond human understanding that you expect of yourself
is so clearly lacking.

Sincerely
(no illusions of beyond human competence and understanding)
Kevin