Troll Poll

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-01-09 10:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 20:06:16 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/01/20 15:34, Michael Terrell wrote:
Is Bill Sloman a troll? Answer Yes or No.

Yes!


No, in the traditional usenet meaning.

He often makes knowledgeable and perceptive posts.

It also appears his text editor has certain comments
encoded as easily invoked keystrokes that are then
macro expanded. That detracts from his helpful posts.

Alternatively, if he is a troll, then so are /many/
other posters on this forum.

Posting on-topic is not trolling. And even a lamish post often
diverges in interesting directions.

The Lamish are those folks in Pennsylvania who have to troll people by
hiding under bridges, right?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in
news:1jLRF.23756$Ul6.10727@fx05.am4:

On 09/01/20 15:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 20:06:16 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/01/20 15:34, Michael Terrell wrote:
Is Bill Sloman a troll? Answer Yes or No.

Yes!


No, in the traditional usenet meaning.

He often makes knowledgeable and perceptive posts.

It also appears his text editor has certain comments encoded as
easily invoked keystrokes that are then macro expanded. That
detracts from his helpful posts.

Alternatively, if he is a troll, then so are /many/ other
posters on this forum.

Posting on-topic is not trolling.

It can be, according to the normal usenet concept
of trolling:

"Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is
the deliberate act of making random unsolicited and/or
controversial comments on various internet forums with
the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction
from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument"
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling

That happens a *lot* here


And even a lamish post often diverges in interesting directions.

Indeed.

Hence comments like this:
"This is an electronics discussion group, not Facebook or
Twitter." could be regarded as low-grade trolling, and
traditionally elicit pithy responses including words like
"internet police".

Or in his case... Pissy little bitch.

 

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:41972e35-5b99-063b-8c96-45287040948c@electrooptical.net:

On 2020-01-09 10:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 20:06:16 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/01/20 15:34, Michael Terrell wrote:
Is Bill Sloman a troll? Answer Yes or No.

Yes!


No, in the traditional usenet meaning.

He often makes knowledgeable and perceptive posts.

It also appears his text editor has certain comments
encoded as easily invoked keystrokes that are then
macro expanded. That detracts from his helpful posts.

Alternatively, if he is a troll, then so are /many/
other posters on this forum.

Posting on-topic is not trolling. And even a lamish post often
diverges in interesting directions.




The Lamish are those folks in Pennsylvania who have to troll
people by hiding under bridges, right?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

If they come to the surface and try to use their jet black horse
drawn buggies, some drunken asshole in a Ford Truck plows into them
from behind and kills them.

So they had to go (stay) underground.

Hey, at least they are not cannibals... yet.

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:38:37 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/20 15:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 20:06:16 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:

On 08/01/20 15:34, Michael Terrell wrote:
Is Bill Sloman a troll? Answer Yes or No.

Yes!


No, in the traditional usenet meaning.

He often makes knowledgeable and perceptive posts.

It also appears his text editor has certain comments encoded as easily
invoked keystrokes that are then macro expanded. That detracts from his
helpful posts.

Alternatively, if he is a troll, then so are /many/ other posters on this
forum.

Posting on-topic is not trolling.

It can be, according to the normal usenet concept
of trolling:

"Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is
the deliberate act of making random unsolicited and/or
controversial comments on various internet forums with
the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction
from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument"
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling

That happens a *lot* here

But I suggest that almost any thread or post that's about electronics
is appropriate. The name of the group includes "design" which benefits
from some amount of wandering around.

Or actually, requires some wandering around. I've got useful ideas
here, often unrelated to the original post.

Design by more than one person is brainstorming. That doesn't work
well when critical, dogmatic, personality-driven people are present.
In real life, I just don't invite people like that. But brainstorming
in public is difficult.

And even a lamish post often diverges in interesting directions.

Indeed.

Hence comments like this:
"This is an electronics discussion group, not Facebook or Twitter."
could be regarded as low-grade trolling, and traditionally
elicit pithy responses including words like "internet police".

Design has non-technical meta-issues. Engineers often don't like to
talk about the psychological and social issues of design, but they are
very real and very important.

Phil Hobbs is fun to design with. And James Arthur. I've done it in
the flesh with both.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:46:05 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote in
news:41972e35-5b99-063b-8c96-45287040948c@electrooptical.net:

On 2020-01-09 10:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 20:06:16 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 08/01/20 15:34, Michael Terrell wrote:
Is Bill Sloman a troll? Answer Yes or No.

Yes!


No, in the traditional usenet meaning.

He often makes knowledgeable and perceptive posts.

It also appears his text editor has certain comments
encoded as easily invoked keystrokes that are then
macro expanded. That detracts from his helpful posts.

Alternatively, if he is a troll, then so are /many/
other posters on this forum.

Posting on-topic is not trolling. And even a lamish post often
diverges in interesting directions.




The Lamish are those folks in Pennsylvania who have to troll
people by hiding under bridges, right?

Cheers

Phil Hobbs


If they come to the surface and try to use their jet black horse
drawn buggies, some drunken asshole in a Ford Truck plows into them
from behind and kills them.

So they had to go (stay) underground.

Hey, at least they are not cannibals... yet.

I think there was debate and consternation, but they finally agreed to
put reflectors on the buggies.

--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:47:47 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 02:11:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 9:55:43 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The most effective way to deal with him is to ignore him.

Turning a blind eye is, by definition, ineffective.

By definition?

Effective means having an effect. If you don't know what's going on, you aren't doing anything positive to change it. There is an effect on you - you feel happier, and you keep on posting nonsense that you aren't aware is nonsense - but in terms of changing the rest of the world there's no effect at all.

It might be most satisfying, or most expeditious, or most amenable to your sleep requirements, but it's not most effective.

Of course it's effective. 95% of Sloman's posts are droning insults
and pointless extended flame wars.

As perceived by John Larkin, who is only really interested in posts that flatter him.

> If everyone ignores him, he'll have no reason to post.

If I posted stuff that nobody found interesting, that would be true. Posting stuff that John Larkin wants to read is a rather specialised skill, and his interests do differ from those of quite a few of the people who post here.

He might even have to buy an oscilloscope and post
something on-topic.

I've got an oscilliscope dongle. I do post quite a lot of on-topic stuff (though apparently nothing that John Larkin wants to read) and it's been years since any of it involved information that came out of the dongle.

If I could find somebody who was prepared to pay money to me to get me to exercise my skills, that might change, but for the moment being other-directed discourages me from spending money on putting actual hardware together.

Sleep requirements? If they had an Olympic Award for sleeping, I'd get
the Gold. I do sometimes take a short break around 3AM to have ideas,
as other people apparently do, but that's fine too.

Waking up in the middle of the night because your sub-conscious background processing has come to a conclusion is not unknown. I've certainly done it.

My father - who slept remarkably deeply - said that his best ideas came to him when he was shaving, which was the first thing he did every morning. They would have included some of his 25 patents. My three patents had always struck me as obvious, and one only got applied for after I'd had to repeatedly explain why it was obvious.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 2:01:22 AM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:1903a2ad-91bd-4f07-
a2bc-d5bec44d3b64@googlegroups.com:

But they do render you more vulnerable to infections.


Too late. The thing you ARE infected with CONTINUES to linger and
AFFECT you and others. You just cannot stop!

You are so goddamned lazy that you have ignore folks telling you
about how stupid it is to access via goggle as well, yet you keep
posting strings hundreds of characters in length, because you are too
stupid to care why or understand the forum in which you are at that
point, decidedly an interloper.

I do have access by eternal September , and use it occasionally. When I started posting here the only programs available worked like that, but there has been some progress since then.

The Google interface works better, so I use that most of the time.

Why on earth you would persist with an interface that can't adjust line length to match the window you are using escapes me, and how you can imagine that such an interface is in someway "superior" is an even bigger mystery

The most fucked up thing about you is that you simply do not care
about the forum you are in, much less those in it with you.

I'm not going to get worried by the opinions of people who are so addicted to antiquated software that they can't recognise its limitations.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 8:55:17 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:38:37 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 09/01/20 15:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 20:06:16 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co..uk
wrote:
On 08/01/20 15:34, Michael Terrell wrote:

<snip>

Posting on-topic is not trolling.

It can be, according to the normal usenet concept
of trolling:

"Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is
the deliberate act of making random unsolicited and/or
controversial comments on various internet forums with
the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction
from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument"
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling

That happens a *lot* here

But I suggest that almost any thread or post that's about electronics
is appropriate. The name of the group includes "design" which benefits
from some amount of wandering around.

Or actually, requires some wandering around. I've got useful ideas
here, often unrelated to the original post.

Design by more than one person is brainstorming. That doesn't work
well when critical, dogmatic, personality-driven people are present.

Uncritical pussies don't help either.

> In real life, I just don't invite people like that.

You are happy to fill that role, and don't want to share it.

> But brainstorming in public is difficult.

It wouldn't be brainstorming if there wasn't some kind of audience.

And even a lamish post often diverges in interesting directions.

Indeed.

Hence comments like this:
"This is an electronics discussion group, not Facebook or Twitter."
could be regarded as low-grade trolling, and traditionally
elicit pithy responses including words like "internet police".

Design has non-technical meta-issues.

"Not invented here" covers a lot of them.

> Engineers often don't like to talk about the psychological and social issues of design,

Psychologists would. Of course they design experiments, and database searches, which no engineer ever would.

> but they are very real and very important.

Obviously.

<snipped John Larkin boosting his friends. James Arthur isn't in the same league as Phil Hobbs, but John Larkin doesn't seem to have noticed>.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:9d7d5c9a-edbf-47c4-a1dd-86a651f20de2@googlegroups.com:

Why on earth you would persist with an interface that can't adjust
line length to match the window you are using escapes me,

No. Usenet ESCAPES YOU. Usenet has a line length limit that we all
respected and honored before the web access stupidity started up.
Why should I have to change what used to work perfectly fine for the
sake of a twerp or a boatload of twerps unable to listen to the army
of folks telling them about what they are doing that is fucked in the
head.

And yes, it DID used to be an army. Most just gave up. And yes,
you ARE fucked in the head for ignoring it.

Still does not change the fact that you are the one ignoring the
convention.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:9d7d5c9a-edbf-47c4-a1dd-86a651f20de2@googlegroups.com:

I'm not going to get worried by the opinions of people who are so
addicted to antiquated software that they can't recognise its
limitations.

Modern news clients are still text, dumbfuck.

The line length convention still remains too.

Usenet itself is old and does NOT change. That is the point.

You using a web browser to gain access to a text forum is LAME IF
you do not learn how to set your fucktarded "new software" up to
FOLLOW the established conventions. And you calling others behind
because we do not follow your stupidity is lameness magnified by
lameness.

You thumbing your nose at it is no different than all the other
things you thumb your nose at in this forum, and THAT is what makes
you the complete putzified asshole you are.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f952b220-5a7e-4898-
acaf-8db72fb6185e@googlegroups.com:

> Uncritical pussies don't help either.

Hilarious. The SloTard calling someone a pussy.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 6:12:35 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:9d7d5c9a-edbf-47c4-a1dd-86a651f20de2@googlegroups.com:


Why on earth you would persist with an interface that can't adjust
line length to match the window you are using escapes me,

No. Usenet ESCAPES YOU. Usenet has a line length limit that we all
respected and honored before the web access stupidity started up.

That wasn't Usenet as such - that was just the hardware available at the time.

> Why should I have to change what used to work perfectly fine for the

Because the new stuff works better.

> sake of a twerp or a boatload of twerps unable to listen to the army
of folks telling them about what they are doing that is fucked in the
head.

It must be a very small army. You seem to be pretty much the only local representative.

And yes, it DID used to be an army. Most just gave up. And yes,
you ARE fucked in the head for ignoring it.

Being inflexible and unwilling to adapt isn't actually sign of mental health.

Not liking it when other people are more flexible isn't either.

Still does not change the fact that you are the one ignoring the
convention.

I'm not so much ignoring it as demonstrating that I knew why why it was there in the first place and why it isn't a useful convention any longer.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 6:16:54 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:9d7d5c9a-edbf-47c4-a1dd-86a651f20de2@googlegroups.com:

I'm not going to get worried by the opinions of people who are so
addicted to antiquated software that they can't recognise its
limitations.

Modern news clients are still text, dumbfuck.

But there's no need for fixed line lengths any more.

> The line length convention still remains too.

It's built into some news clients, mainly to make stick-in-the-muds like you happy.

> Usenet itself is old and does NOT change. That is the point.

Usenet was about swapping information. That hasn't changed. The line length rules no longer serve any useful purpose.

You using a web browser to gain access to a text forum is LAME IF
you do not learn how to set your fucktarded "new software" up to
FOLLOW the established conventions. And you calling others behind
because we do not follow your stupidity is lameness magnified by
lameness.

I'm not being stupid. You are being pointlessly inflexible.

You thumbing your nose at it is no different than all the other
things you thumb your nose at in this forum, and THAT is what makes
you the complete putzified asshole you are.

Says DLUNU who seems scores even higher on that measure.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 6:17:45 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in news:f952b220-5a7e-4898-
acaf-8db72fb6185e@googlegroups.com:

Uncritical pussies don't help either.

Hilarious. Sloman calling someone a pussy.

I didn't call anybody a "pussy". I just pointed out that brainstorming does involve both putting up ideas and reacting to them, and if you hadn't got the capacity to react you wouldn't be a useful participant.

Since you've snipped most of the context to text-chop out something that you could be offensive about, you've made yourself something of a laughing stock in the process, not for the first time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:6830c15b-2e14-49b5-881b-326d5c2eb88b@googlegroups.com:

I'm not so much ignoring it as demonstrating that I knew why why
it was there in the first place and why it isn't a useful
convention any longer.

The reason Usenet IS the same, and ONLY text and has the line length
is NOT the reason you think it is. It is not about an old display
array size, you dopey dumbass.

It is about the datagram and the servers.

And there are still nations using 286s and POTS modems.

You ain't real bright.

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:0e419988-e985-4d25-a309-a517fae2de64@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 6:17:45 PM UTC+11,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f952b220-5a7e-4898- acaf-8db72fb6185e@googlegroups.com:

Uncritical pussies don't help either.

Hilarious. Sloman calling someone a pussy.

I didn't call anybody a "pussy".

Yes, you did. You called uncritical folks pussies. You just
failed to perform the critical analysis on your own petty mouthings.

snipped unrelated segment, since the line I mentioned is the only one
that matters.

Since you've snipped most of the context to text-chop out
something that you could be offensive about,

You calling someone a pussy is offensive. I quoted and responded
to that, because that is what you wrote that is stupid, regardless of
the surrounding context.

you've made yourself
something of a laughing stock in the process,

Nice try, punk. But your tripe response by no means makes me a
laughing stock, nor does the fact that I only quoted what I responded
to.

not for the first
time.

Nice try, putz.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 7:26:54 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:6830c15b-2e14-49b5-881b-326d5c2eb88b@googlegroups.com:

I'm not so much ignoring it as demonstrating that I knew why why
it was there in the first place and why it isn't a useful
convention any longer.


The reason Usenet IS the same, and ONLY text and has the line length
is NOT the reason you think it is. It is not about an old display
array size, you dopey dumbass.

No, it's about the software that drove the old displays.

> It is about the datagram and the servers.

Really? Neither of them could care less about the contents of the packets of data going through them.

> And there are still nations using 286s and POTS modems.

So what? One has to wonder where they get the 286 processors from - if you've got single crystal silicon wafers to write on you can make a lot money using them to make higher performance processors.

> You ain't real bright.

Not from your point of view, which seems to be concentrated on your own rear end.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 7:33:22 PM UTC+11, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:0e419988-e985-4d25-a309-a517fae2de64@googlegroups.com:

On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 6:17:45 PM UTC+11,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:f952b220-5a7e-4898- acaf-8db72fb6185e@googlegroups.com:

Uncritical pussies don't help either.

Hilarious. Sloman calling someone a pussy.

I didn't call anybody a "pussy".

Yes, you did. You called uncritical folks pussies.

Your reading comprehension let you down again. Uncritical folk aren't necessarily pussies - John Larkin couldn't do critical thinking to save his soul, but he isn't a pussy.

> You just failed to perform the critical analysis on your own petty mouthings.

You tried to, and got it wrong.

snipped unrelated segment, since the line I mentioned is the only one
that matters.

Not exactly. Once you had snipped out the context, you had something that you could be offensive about. You had to misunderstand what was being said to manage that.

Since you've snipped most of the context to text-chop out
something that you could be offensive about,

You calling someone a pussy is offensive. I quoted and responded
to that, because that is what you wrote that is stupid, regardless of
the surrounding context.

A pussy is merely somebody who sits there and purrs, rather than getting up and getting anything done.

It's not a term of approval, but it isn't offensive either, unless you've confused it with one of the other uses of the word, which wouldn't have fit the context that you snipped.

you've made yourself
something of a laughing stock in the process,

Nice try, punk. But your tripe response by no means makes me a
laughing stock, nor does the fact that I only quoted what I responded
to.

Dream on.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 09/01/20 21:55, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jan 2020 19:38:37 +0000, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 09/01/20 15:50, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 20:06:16 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:

On 08/01/20 15:34, Michael Terrell wrote:
Is Bill Sloman a troll? Answer Yes or No.

Yes!


No, in the traditional usenet meaning.

He often makes knowledgeable and perceptive posts.

It also appears his text editor has certain comments encoded as easily
invoked keystrokes that are then macro expanded. That detracts from his
helpful posts.

Alternatively, if he is a troll, then so are /many/ other posters on this
forum.

Posting on-topic is not trolling.

It can be, according to the normal usenet concept
of trolling:

"Trolling – (verb), as it relates to internet, is
the deliberate act of making random unsolicited and/or
controversial comments on various internet forums with
the intent to provoke an emotional knee jerk reaction
from unsuspecting readers to engage in a fight or argument"
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Trolling

That happens a *lot* here

But I suggest that almost any thread or post that's about electronics
is appropriate. The name of the group includes "design" which benefits
from some amount of wandering around.

Or actually, requires some wandering around. I've got useful ideas
here, often unrelated to the original post.

True, but unrelated to the definition of trolling.

Design by more than one person is brainstorming. That doesn't work
well when critical, dogmatic, personality-driven people are present.

The critical faculties have to be turned off during phase1,
the ideas generation phase. That is difficult for some people.

The critical faculties have to be partially turned on during
phase1, the ideas consolidation and evaluation phase

In real life, I just don't invite people like that. But brainstorming
in public is difficult.

Yes, to the point where it is unlikely to come up with a
useful idea. So I wouldn't try it.

Software people might try it multiple times, expecting that
the reboot will remove the problem

And even a lamish post often diverges in interesting directions.

Indeed.

Hence comments like this:
"This is an electronics discussion group, not Facebook or Twitter."
could be regarded as low-grade trolling, and traditionally
elicit pithy responses including words like "internet police".

Design has non-technical meta-issues. Engineers often don't like to
talk about the psychological and social issues of design, but they are
very real and very important.

Phil Hobbs is fun to design with. And James Arthur. I've done it in
the flesh with both.

Everybody has people they can work effectively with. It would
be surprising if a person could work well with everybody/anybody.

 

[George Herold]

On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 12:34:41 PM UTC-5, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-01-08 12:11, bulegoge@columbus.rr.com wrote:
What does it matter if he is a troll. This group has far more interesting content than any moderated forum. I ignore him 90 percent of the time but why would i want anyone here to leave? I mean you really cannot foul up the joint and the trolls here are often on topic so why even the discussion on trolls. Go find a very boring moderated forum


I for one don't want Bill to leave, I just want the Bill of 20 years ago
back again. A few years ago I had a try at persuasion, but it didn't help.

Yeah it's sad. A warning to us all that, 'grumpy old man' is a
trap that is easy for old men to fall into.

George H.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com