Who is Guy Macon ?

[Pig Bladder]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:29:32 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:
Guy Macon wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

and now I have to set on a wet spot ;-)

Start wearing thicker diapers. Remember, having an incontinence problem
is only shameful if you let it be. We are all here for you, Jim.

I think you left out the word "known" after "let it be".

I don't happen to have the condition, but Jim Thompson, Bob Stephens
and Terry Given do, and they don't do a lot to hide it. Oh, sure,
they use code words like "transistor" or "voltage", but it's pretty
clear what they are really talking about...

Macon, you're being unconscionably petty here. It's irrelevant
whether Jim Thompson, Bob Stephens, Terry Given, You, I, or anyone
else here have an incontinence problem. [<aside> my problem with
in continents is, when I'm not in North America, I don't know
how to speak the language! <rim shot></aside -- Rich the Joker>]

On a serious note, My Dad had incontinence in his waning years.
It is no joke.

If you want to throw barbs at Thompson, at least do something
real, and jokable, like his draft-dodgerhood, being king of the
geek frat at the king of geeks school, being a one-note performer,
who can design circles around any of us in analog asics, but
hasn't ever had a real life experience because he's been insulated
by Daddy's money and contacts, you know, the sort of thing that
people are _really_ supposed to be ashamed of.

Good Luck!
Rich

 

[Pig Bladder]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:00:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Gee Maçon doesn't seem to remember that I PLONKED him.

Who cares? You plonk _everybody_ that you don't like.

Ho, Hum
Rich

 

[Richard the Dreaded Liber]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:00:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Gee Maçon doesn't seem to remember that I PLONKED him.

Another tactic of the mindless automaton - change the
spelling of the name you're attacking, because you're too
cowardly to confront him directly.

Why should I expect better from the minions of the fourth
reich?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Terry Given]

Pig Bladder wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:29:32 +0000, Guy Macon wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:


and now I have to set on a wet spot ;-)

Start wearing thicker diapers. Remember, having an incontinence problem
is only shameful if you let it be. We are all here for you, Jim.

I think you left out the word "known" after "let it be".

I don't happen to have the condition, but Jim Thompson, Bob Stephens
and Terry Given do, and they don't do a lot to hide it. Oh, sure,
they use code words like "transistor" or "voltage", but it's pretty
clear what they are really talking about...


Macon, you're being unconscionably petty here. It's irrelevant
whether Jim Thompson, Bob Stephens, Terry Given, You, I, or anyone
else here have an incontinence problem. [<aside> my problem with
in continents is, when I'm not in North America, I don't know
how to speak the language! <rim shot></aside -- Rich the Joker>]

On a serious note, My Dad had incontinence in his waning years.
It is no joke.

If you want to throw barbs at Thompson, at least do something
real, and jokable, like his draft-dodgerhood, being king of the
geek frat at the king of geeks school, being a one-note performer,
who can design circles around any of us in analog asics, but
hasn't ever had a real life experience because he's been insulated
by Daddy's money and contacts, you know, the sort of thing that
people are _really_ supposed to be ashamed of.

Good Luck!
Rich

I thought Guys post was funny.

Cheers
Terry (no shit

 

[Gee Maçon]

Pig Bladder wrote:

On a serious note, My Dad had incontinence in his waning years.
It is no joke.

You are correct, and I apologize for being insensitive.
The way he left himself wide open with that wet spot comment
was just too tempting.

If you want to throw barbs at Thompson, at least do something
real, and jokable, like his draft-dodgerhood, being king of the
geek frat at the king of geeks school, being a one-note performer,
who can design circles around any of us in analog asics, but
hasn't ever had a real life experience because he's been insulated
by Daddy's money and contacts, you know, the sort of thing that
people are _really_ supposed to be ashamed of.

Alas, I lack the interest to do the research about boring people
needed to generate really effective flames, so I just take a shot
when an obvious opening occurs, then adjust my killfile so that
the boring person in question ends up shouting into an empty hall.

 

[Gee Maçon]

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


Pig Bladder wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

Gee Maçon doesn't seem to remember that I PLONKED him.

Who cares? You plonk _everybody_ that you don't like.

Ho, Hum

I, on the other hand, plonk those who are boring, whether or
not I happen to dislike them.

 

[Gee Maçon]

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:00:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Gee Maçon doesn't seem to remember that I PLONKED him.

Another tactic of the mindless automaton - change the
spelling of the name you're attacking, because you're too
cowardly to confront him directly.

Why should I expect better from the minions of the fourth
reich?

What's really hilarious is that my ancestors came from England,
not France, so "Guy" rhymes whith "Eye" and "Macon" rhymes with
"Bacon", not the "ghee mass on" french pronounciation.

 

[Gee Maçon]

Al Borowski wrote:

on the positive side
from
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guymacon.com%2F

The document located at <http://www.guymacon.com/> was checked and
found to be valid XHTML 1.0 Strict.

Not many websites can claim this

Because as long as web sites view in popular browsers, no one cares.

Leaving aside the fact that you are wrong about valid pages not being
needed for "popular browsers" (do a web search on [ quirks mode ] ),
it's a matter of professional pride. I don't ship buggy code or buggy
hardware, so why would I put up buggy webpages?

 

[Pooh Bear]

Keith Williams wrote:

In article <11bohcp6kkb5k77@corp.supernews.com>, Gee Maçon_
"http://www.GeeMaçon.com/"> says...

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


Jim Thompson wrote:

Gee Maçon doesn't seem to remember that I PLONKED him.

I *had* forgotten that. So much about Jim Thompson is forgettable...

while I still remember; *plonk*


another one rides the bus.
another one rides the bus.

--
Keith

Were you thinking of certain well-known song by Queen there by any chance ?

Graham

 

[Fred Bartoli]

"Gee Maçon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> a écrit dans le message de
news:11bpmlim2edhoa7@corp.supernews.com...

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:00:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Gee Maçon doesn't seem to remember that I PLONKED him.

Another tactic of the mindless automaton - change the
spelling of the name you're attacking, because you're too
cowardly to confront him directly.

Why should I expect better from the minions of the fourth
reich?

What's really hilarious is that my ancestors came from England,
not France, so "Guy" rhymes whith "Eye" and "Macon" rhymes with
"Bacon", not the "ghee mass on" french pronounciation.

No, French pronounciation is Guy Macon.


--
Thanks,
Fred.

 

[Al Borowski]

The document located at <http://www.guymacon.com/> was checked and
found to be valid XHTML 1.0 Strict.

Not many websites can claim this

Because as long as web sites view in popular browsers, no one cares.


Leaving aside the fact that you are wrong about valid pages not being
needed for "popular browsers" (do a web search on [ quirks mode ] ),
it's a matter of professional pride. I don't ship buggy code or buggy
hardware, so why would I put up buggy webpages?

I know about quirks mode. The point is, as long as the page correctly
renders on popular browsers, 99% of people simply don't care what what
the validator says.

Case in point: google.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com

The validator says there are _52_ errors. Do I care? No. It renders
properly on Firefox, Mozilla and IE.

Al

 

[Guy Macon]

Al Borowski wrote:

I know about quirks mode. The point is, as long as the page correctly
renders on popular browsers, 99% of people simply don't care what what
the validator says.

99% of people don't care about most software or hardware bugs, but
that doesn't mean that I am going to ship a buggy product - or write
a buggy webpage. *I* will know.

Also, what works on popular browsers today may not work on popular
browsers ten years from now. At one time, netscape 4 and IE 3 were
the most popular, and many web pages written for those browsers do
not render correctly today. Valid code has a much better chance of
working far into the future.

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:27:13 GMT, Pig Bladder <pigbladder@example.com>
wrote:

[snip]

Sheeesh! I almost missed this trash since I have Pig Bladder
appropriately plonked.

If you want to throw barbs at Thompson, at least do something
real, and jokable, like his draft-dodgerhood,

While I wasn't drafted, I held many security clearances and was
heavily involved in military electronics... designed more
electronically-controlled weapons than you even know exist.

I've even designed for GOI-MOD (Government of Israel, Ministry of
Defense

I don't know where you got the "draft-dodgerhood" idea, but I resent
it.

being king of the
geek frat at the king of geeks school,

Was never in a "frat"... I'm not a joiner, but I did graduate from the
"king of the geeks school"... attended on a full Alumni National
Scholarship, back in the days when scholarships were awarded strictly
on merit, not on financial need.

being a one-note performer,
who can design circles around any of us in analog asics, but
hasn't ever had a real life experience

No "...real life experience"?? Where do your observation capabilities
lie, up your ass? I have more commercial/consumer/military product
out there than, I believe, _all_ other posters here.

I'm currently working on the design of a WiFi repeater chip, a sonar
chip, a clock synchronizer, a hearing aid with MMIC microphone, and
fixing someone else's botched MIL_STD_1397C driver design.

because he's been insulated
by Daddy's money and contacts, you know, the sort of thing that
people are _really_ supposed to be ashamed of.

Good Luck!
Rich

"Daddy's money and contacts"? My Dad will get a kick out of that.
His income has never exceeded that of the lower middle class. He did
own a TV repair shop and a small hardware store, but neither would
meet the level of super income provider. Currently his income derives
from performing in a hillbilly band and selling hand-made dulcimers.

So... GFY!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Genome]

"Fred Bartoli"
<fred._canxxxel_this_bartoli@RemoveThatAlso_free.fr_AndThisToo> wrote in
message news:42bd2dec$0$28096$636a15ce@news.free.fr...

"Gee Maçon" <_see.web.page_@_www.guymacon.com_> a écrit dans le message de
news:11bpmlim2edhoa7@corp.supernews.com...

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:00:39 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:

Gee Maçon doesn't seem to remember that I PLONKED him.

Another tactic of the mindless automaton - change the
spelling of the name you're attacking, because you're too
cowardly to confront him directly.

Why should I expect better from the minions of the fourth
reich?

What's really hilarious is that my ancestors came from England,
not France, so "Guy" rhymes whith "Eye" and "Macon" rhymes with
"Bacon", not the "ghee mass on" french pronounciation.



No, French pronounciation is Guy Macon.


--
Thanks,
Fred.

No, in French it is

'Tęte d'une pomme de terre'.

Which would be pronounced

'Tet doon pom duh tare'.

DNA

 

[Pooh Bear]

Genome wrote:

No, in French it is

'Tęte d'une pomme de terre'.

Which would be pronounced

'Tet doon pom duh tare'.

LOL ! He looks a bit like him too, going by the pic on his site.

Graham

 

[martin griffith]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:08:36 +1000, in sci.electronics.design Al
Borowski <al.borowski@EraseThis.gmail.com> wrote:

The document located at <http://www.guymacon.com/> was checked and
found to be valid XHTML 1.0 Strict.

Not many websites can claim this

Because as long as web sites view in popular browsers, no one cares.


Leaving aside the fact that you are wrong about valid pages not being
needed for "popular browsers" (do a web search on [ quirks mode ] ),
it's a matter of professional pride. I don't ship buggy code or buggy
hardware, so why would I put up buggy webpages?

I know about quirks mode. The point is, as long as the page correctly
renders on popular browsers, 99% of people simply don't care what what
the validator says.

Case in point: google.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com

The validator says there are _52_ errors. Do I care? No. It renders
properly on Firefox, Mozilla and IE.

Al
But If you PAID someone to write a comprehensive website for your biz,

would you not expect it to be correctly validated?


martin

 

[Pooh Bear]

martin griffith wrote:

But If you PAID someone to write a comprehensive website for your biz,
would you not expect it to be correctly validated?

With my experience of website 'designers' I'd have to say " you're kidding,
right ? ".

Graham

 

[martin griffith]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:50:52 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Pooh
Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

martin griffith wrote:

But If you PAID someone to write a comprehensive website for your biz,
would you not expect it to be correctly validated?

With my experience of website 'designers' I'd have to say " you're kidding,
right ? ".

Graham
Nope, not kidding at all, it would be in the conditions for writing

the web site. You saw that recent PCB site AD here. If that sucker had
paid to have that site designed, he would have a comeback if he'd
included a validation clause. If it was a UK site, one of those
consumer laws would possibly have protected him, fitness for
use/whatever, (too many glasses of vino to discuss in more detail
hic!)

BTW is you email ad valid, may need some dig audio stuff in a few
months




martin

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"martin griffith" <martingriffith@XXyahoo.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:c3drb155d8i0e2sl1hs268och3uitn8o1d@4ax.com...

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 22:08:36 +1000, in sci.electronics.design Al
Borowski <al.borowski@EraseThis.gmail.com> wrote:

I know about quirks mode. The point is, as long as the page correctly
renders on popular browsers, 99% of people simply don't care what what
the validator says.

Case in point: google.com

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fgoogle.com

The validator says there are _52_ errors. Do I care? No. It renders
properly on Firefox, Mozilla and IE.

Al
But If you PAID someone to write a comprehensive website for your biz,
would you not expect it to be correctly validated?

Of course not, that is the *least* important bit. It's generally
better to spend time on good structure, scripts with as few bugs
as possible, userfriendly interfaces, and all the other 99% that
the w3 validator does not give a sh*t about.

If I paid someone to write a comprehensive website for my biz,
I would expect it to work, nothing less and nothing more.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'q' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Pooh Bear]

martin griffith wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 21:50:52 +0100, in sci.electronics.design Pooh
Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:

martin griffith wrote:

But If you PAID someone to write a comprehensive website for your biz,
would you not expect it to be correctly validated?

With my experience of website 'designers' I'd have to say " you're kidding,
right ? ".

Graham
Nope, not kidding at all, it would be in the conditions for writing
the web site.

Lol. With my experience of UK management I'd have to say " you're kidding that
they'd think to put in a sensible clause like that ? ". Indeed a presumption
that UK management could find it's arse on a good day seems ahem ... presumptive
!

You saw that recent PCB site AD here.

No, I missed that one I think. If it was an ad here that might explain it.

If that sucker had
paid to have that site designed, he would have a comeback if he'd
included a validation clause. If it was a UK site, one of those
consumer laws would possibly have protected him, fitness for
use/whatever, (too many glasses of vino to discuss in more detail
hic!)

I know the law you mean. If it worked with 'most' browsers 'adequately' you'd
satisfy the law in effect. And you could argue what 'most' were as a defence.
And the client would have to sue the web designer. A risky tactic at best. But I
don't know how bad it was !

BTW is you email ad valid, may need some dig audio stuff in a few
months

Yes, it is valid, wacky as it may seem ! It actually seems to be effective in
keeping almost all the spammers at bay. I guess an addy that long gets rejected
by their spambots.

Cheers, Graham