Re: Obama Reality Show

On Apr 4, 3:35*am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:14:30 -0700, D from BC
>
> <myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote:
> >You may have seen reality shows such as :
>
> >The Osbournes
> >Hogan Knows Best
> >Newlyeds
> >Nick and Jessica
> >The Surreal Life
> >The Anna Nicole Show
>
> >Get ready for the greatest reality show ever.
> >Powerful enough to push 'House' to another time slot.
>
> >The Obama Show
>
> Here's the Real Obama:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...obama-nick-rob...

So he's a politician - one would have thought that you would have
noticed ths by now.

There was only one honest answer to that question, and Obama knows it,
but if he gave it he'd get a lot of bad press in the U.S.A. so he
waffled, as would any other politician
who knew how to do their job. He doesn't seem to have given Nick
Robinson room to ask a follow up question, which suggests that he was
in better control of the situation than the Guardian article implies.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On Apr 5, 1:46*am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 15:33:19 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >On Apr 4, 3:35*am, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:14:30 -0700, D from BC
>
> >> <myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote:
> >> >You may have seen reality shows such as :
>
> >> >The Osbournes
> >> >Hogan Knows Best
> >> >Newlyeds
> >> >Nick and Jessica
> >> >The Surreal Life
> >> >The Anna Nicole Show
>
> >> >Get ready for the greatest reality show ever.
> >> >Powerful enough to push 'House' to another time slot.
>
> >> >The Obama Show
>
> >> Here's the Real Obama:
>
> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...obama-nick-rob....
>
> >So he's a politician - one would have thought that you would have
> >noticed this by now.
>
> >There was only one honest answer to that question, and Obama knows it,
> >but if he gave it he'd get a lot of bad press in the U.S.A. so he
> >waffled, as would any other politician
> >who knew how to do their job. He doesn't seem to have given Nick
> >Robinson room to ask a follow up question, which suggests that he was
> >in better control of the situation than the Guardian article implies.
>
> The only times he gives coherent answers is when the questions have
> been arranged in advance. So of course he doesn't allow follow-ups
> once he has been caught unprepared.

BBC interviewers have been known to ignore this kind of arrangement.

And it seems unlikely that Obama was "caught unprepared". He obviously
hadn't anticipated the particular question closely enough to have had
his speech writers give him a prepared answer which he could learn by
heart and reel off in response, but he wasn't caught flat-footed. If
you'd had to improvise an inoffensive answer to that question, you
wouldn't have done nearly as well.

Obama clearly one of the new generation of political front men who
improvise remarkably well - in the Netherlands the late Pim Fortuin
destroyed a couple of political leaders who couldn't improvise, and
one of the their replacement - Worter Bos of the PvDA (the Dutch
Labour Party) is remarkably able in this task. Oddly enough the other
replacement leader who stands out - Femke Halsema - who now leads
GroenLinks (the ecology party) replaced Paul Rosenmöller, who was the
only Dutch politician who could cope with Pim Fortuin.

Sadly, this earned him the hatred of the followers of Pim Fortuin, who
- further embittered by the assassination of Pim Fortuin - produced
enough death threats and other unpleasantness to drive Paul
Rosenmöller out of politcs.

> He is an idiot who is merely the front for, well, more idiots.

He is rather less of an idiot that than George W.Bush Jnr. and fronts
for people who have a rather better grip of reality that the
intelligent, but irrational crowd that controlled George W. Bush and
made something of a mess of the USA while he was in power.

For the benefit of those who don't remember the discussions of the
intelligence of George W. Bush, he seems to have had an IQ of around
120 when he was an undergraduate at Harvard. Obama's academic record
suggests that he was rather smarter at that stage of his career, and
unlike George W. Bush, Obama doesn't seem to have drunk enough ethyl
alcohol to destroy many of his brain cells since then.

John Larkin is probably bright enough to work this out for himself, if
he were to go to the trouble of thinking about the subject, rather
than ventilating his poltical prejudices.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 08:17:45 -0700, Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I'm always pleased to note that I'm the highest standard for Slowman's
>disdain, but please don't feed the jerk. Let him die that most
>unpleasant of deaths... alone ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson

Why don't you post it again, retard? We didn't catch just how stupid
you are the first two times.

On Apr 6, 1:24*pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 05:40:24 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> > >On Apr 5, 1:46 am, John Larkin
> > ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 15:33:19 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> > >> >On Apr 4, 3:35 am, John Larkin
> > >> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> > >> >> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:14:30 -0700, D from BC

<snip>

> > >John Larkin is probably bright enough to work this out for himself, if
> > >he were to go to the trouble of thinking about the subject, rather
> > >than ventilating his poltical prejudices.
>
> > I build things that work, and you don't.
>
> * Just like his parents. *Generations of losers.

Michael A Terrell never misses a chance to be enven more out of touch
with reality than his hero.

My father was toleraly famous in his - rather specialised - line of
business. He was named as inventor on some 25 patents relating to wood
pulping technology. Here's the most important one

http://www.google.com/patents?vid=US...&jtp=1#PPA1,M1

Though it's not mentioned in the patent, anybody who lives down-wide
of a sulphide process pulp mill - which used to generate enough
mercaptans to pollute the olefactory environment for 25 miles down-
wind - should be grateful, as the counter-current wash in the base of
the digestor vastly decreases the production of volatie mercaptans.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On Apr 6, 4:28*pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:25:07 -0700, D from BC
>
>
>
>
>
> <myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:46:32 -0700, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 05:40:24 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 5, 1:46*am, John Larkin
> >>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 15:33:19 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >>>> >On Apr 4, 3:35*am, John Larkin
> >>>> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >>>> >> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:14:30 -0700, D from BC
>
> >>>> >> <myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote:
> >>>> >> >You may have seen reality shows such as :
>
> >>>> >> >The Osbournes
> >>>> >> >Hogan Knows Best
> >>>> >> >Newlyeds
> >>>> >> >Nick and Jessica
> >>>> >> >The Surreal Life
> >>>> >> >The Anna Nicole Show
>
> >>>> >> >Get ready for the greatest reality show ever.
> >>>> >> >Powerful enough to push 'House' to another time slot.
>
> >>>> >> >The Obama Show
>
> >>>> >> Here's the Real Obama:
>
> >>>> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...obama-nick-rob...
>
> >>>> >So he's a politician - one would have thought that you would have
> >>>> >noticed this by now.
>
> >>>> >There was only one honest answer to that question, and Obama knows it,
> >>>> >but if he gave it he'd get a lot of bad press in the U.S.A. so he
> >>>> >waffled, as would any other politician
> >>>> >who knew how to do their job. He doesn't seem to have given Nick
> >>>> >Robinson room to ask a follow up question, which suggests that he was
> >>>> >in better control of the situation than the Guardian article implies.
>
> >>>> The only times he gives coherent answers is when the questions have
> >>>> been arranged in advance. So of course he doesn't allow follow-ups
> >>>> once he has been caught unprepared.
>
> >>>BBC interviewers have been known to ignore this kind of arrangement.
>
> >>>And it seems unlikely that Obama was "caught unprepared". He obviously
> >>>hadn't anticipated the particular question closely enough to have had
> >>>his speech writers give him a prepared answer which he could learn by
> >>>heart and reel off in response, but he wasn't caught flat-footed. If
> >>>you'd had to improvise an inoffensive answer to that question, you
> >>>wouldn't have done nearly as well.
>
> >>>Obama clearly one of the new generation of political front men who
> >>>improvise remarkably well - in the Netherlands the late Pim Fortuin
> >>>destroyed a couple of political leaders who couldn't improvise, and
> >>>one of the their replacement - Worter Bos of the PvDA (the Dutch
> >>>Labour Party) is remarkably able in this task. Oddly enough the other
> >>>replacement leader who stands out - Femke Halsema - who now leads
> >>>GroenLinks (the ecology party) replaced Paul Rosenmöller, who was the
> >>>only Dutch politician who could cope with Pim Fortuin.
>
> >>>Sadly, this earned him the hatred of the followers of Pim Fortuin, who
> >>>- further embittered by the assassination of Pim Fortuin - produced
> >>>enough death threats and other unpleasantness to drive Paul
> >>>Rosenmöller out of politcs.
>
> >>>> He is an idiot who is merely the front for, well, more idiots.
>
> >>>He is rather less of an idiot that than George W.Bush Jnr. and fronts
> >>>for people who have a rather better grip of reality that the
> >>>intelligent, but irrational crowd that controlled George W. Bush and
> >>>made something of a mess of the USA while he was in power.
>
> >>>For the benefit of those who don't remember the discussions of the
> >>>intelligence of George W. Bush, he seems to have had an IQ of around
> >>>120 when he was an undergraduate at Harvard. Obama's academic record
> >>>suggests that he was rather smarter at that stage of his career, and
> >>>unlike George W. Bush, Obama doesn't seem to have drunk enough ethyl
> >>>alcohol to destroy many of his brain cells since then.
>
> >>>John Larkin is probably bright enough to work this out for himself, if
> >>>he were to go to the trouble of thinking about the subject, rather
> >>>than ventilating his poltical prejudices.
>
> >>I build things that work, and you don't.
>
> >>John
>
> >Yikes...
> >Probably the rudeness thing to say from one designer to another.. :P
> >But funny to read..
>
> He's not an electronics designer.

I'm certainly not getting any chance to practice my skills at the
moment.

>If he ever was, apparently most of
> his projects were failures.

Most of them didn't get into production, but that those that didn't
get cancelled too early were technically successful, in that they did
what they were supposed to.

> Why he hangs out in s.e.d., pretending to
> be more intelligent than everyone else, and insulting them for
> questioning his brilliance, on a subject that's way off-topic, is a
> mystery.

As is the reason why John Larkin hangs around here, pontificating
about aspects of science that he doesn't know much about.

> He has virtually nothing to say about electronics but a few
> repeated old stories and references to the Farnell catalog. I suppose
> he's just another usenet pain slut who craves public humiliation.

Whereas John Larkin seems to feel it necessary to prove that he has
shallow-rooted opinions about scientific questions, and lacks the wit
to learn from his mistakes.

On those rare occasions when my opinions are shown to be incorrect, I
don't feel humiliated but educated. John Larkin has proved himself to
be pretty much ineducatable, which he ought to find humiliating, but
being shown up as a superficial ignoramus doesn't seem to be a
situation that he's equipped to comprehend, any more than he is
equipped to comprehend the (rock-solid) scientific case for
anthropological global warming

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

On Apr 7, 11:29*pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 11:32:34 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >On Apr 6, 4:28 pm, John Larkin
> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 21:25:07 -0700, D from BC
>
> >> <myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:46:32 -0700, John Larkin
> >> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 05:40:24 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
>
> >> >>>On Apr 5, 1:46 am, John Larkin
> >> >>><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 15:33:19 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
> >> >>>> >On Apr 4, 3:35 am, John Larkin
> >> >>>> ><jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> >> On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:14:30 -0700, D from BC
>
> >> >>>> >> <myrealaddr...@comic.com> wrote:
> >> >>>> >> >You may have seen reality shows such as :
>
> >> >>>> >> >The Osbournes
> >> >>>> >> >Hogan Knows Best
> >> >>>> >> >Newlyeds
> >> >>>> >> >Nick and Jessica
> >> >>>> >> >The Surreal Life
> >> >>>> >> >The Anna Nicole Show
>
> >> >>>> >> >Get ready for the greatest reality show ever.
> >> >>>> >> >Powerful enough to push 'House' to another time slot.
>
> >> >>>> >> >The Obama Show
>
> >> >>>> >> Here's the Real Obama:
>
> >> >>>> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...obama-nick-rob...
>
> >> >>>> >So he's a politician - one would have thought that you would have
> >> >>>> >noticed this by now.
>
> >> >>>> >There was only one honest answer to that question, and Obama knows it,
> >> >>>> >but if he gave it he'd get a lot of bad press in the U.S.A. so he
> >> >>>> >waffled, as would any other politician
> >> >>>> >who knew how to do their job. He doesn't seem to have given Nick
> >> >>>> >Robinson room to ask a follow up question, which suggests that he was
> >> >>>> >in better control of the situation than the Guardian article implies.
>
> >> >>>> The only times he gives coherent answers is when the questions have
> >> >>>> been arranged in advance. So of course he doesn't allow follow-ups
> >> >>>> once he has been caught unprepared.
>
> >> >>>BBC interviewers have been known to ignore this kind of arrangement..
>
> >> >>>And it seems unlikely that Obama was "caught unprepared". He obviously
> >> >>>hadn't anticipated the particular question closely enough to have had
> >> >>>his speech writers give him a prepared answer which he could learn by
> >> >>>heart and reel off in response, but he wasn't caught flat-footed. If
> >> >>>you'd had to improvise an inoffensive answer to that question, you
> >> >>>wouldn't have done nearly as well.
>
> >> >>>Obama clearly one of the new generation of political front men who
> >> >>>improvise remarkably well - in the Netherlands the late Pim Fortuin
> >> >>>destroyed a couple of political leaders who couldn't improvise, and
> >> >>>one of the their replacement - Worter Bos of the PvDA (the Dutch
> >> >>>Labour Party) is remarkably able in this task. Oddly enough the other
> >> >>>replacement leader who stands out - Femke Halsema - who now leads
> >> >>>GroenLinks (the ecology party) replaced Paul Rosenm ller, who was the
> >> >>>only Dutch politician who could cope with Pim Fortuin.
>
> >> >>>Sadly, this earned him the hatred of the followers of Pim Fortuin, who
> >> >>>- further embittered by the assassination of Pim Fortuin - produced
> >> >>>enough death threats and other unpleasantness to drive Paul
> >> >>>Rosenm ller out of politcs.
>
> >> >>>> He is an idiot who is merely the front for, well, more idiots.
>
> >> >>>He is rather less of an idiot that than George W.Bush Jnr. and fronts
> >> >>>for people who have a rather better grip of reality that the
> >> >>>intelligent, but irrational crowd that controlled George W. Bush and
> >> >>>made something of a mess of the USA while he was in power.
>
> >> >>>For the benefit of those who don't remember the discussions of the
> >> >>>intelligence of George W. Bush, he seems to have had an IQ of around
> >> >>>120 when he was an undergraduate at Harvard. Obama's academic record
> >> >>>suggests that he was rather smarter at that stage of his career, and
> >> >>>unlike George W. Bush, Obama doesn't seem to have drunk enough ethyl
> >> >>>alcohol to destroy many of his brain cells since then.
>
> >> >>>John Larkin is probably bright enough to work this out for himself,if
> >> >>>he were to go to the trouble of thinking about the subject, rather
> >> >>>than ventilating his poltical prejudices.
>
> >> >>I build things that work, and you don't.
>
> >> >>John
>
> >> >Yikes...
> >> >Probably the rudeness thing to say from one designer to another.. :P
> >> >But funny to read..
>
> >> He's not an electronics designer.
>
> >I'm certainly not getting any chance to practice my skills at the
> >moment.
>
> >>If he ever was, apparently most of
> >> his projects were failures.
>
> >Most of them didn't get into production, but that those that didn't
> >get cancelled too early were technically successful, in that they did
> >what they were supposed to.
>
> >> Why he hangs out in s.e.d., pretending to
> >> be more intelligent than everyone else, and insulting them for
> >> questioning his brilliance, on a subject that's way off-topic, is a
> >> mystery.
>
> >As is the reason why John Larkin hangs around here, pontificating
> >about aspects of science that he doesn't know much about.
>
> >> He has virtually nothing to say about electronics but a few
> >> repeated old stories and references to the Farnell catalog. I suppose
> >> he's just another usenet pain slut who craves public humiliation.
>
> >Whereas John Larkin seems to feel it necessary to prove that he has
> >shallow-rooted opinions about scientific questions, and lacks the wit
> >to learn from his mistakes.
>
> >On those rare occasions when my opinions are shown to be incorrect, I
> >don't feel humiliated but educated. John Larkin has proved himself to
> >be pretty much ineducatable, which he ought to find humiliating, but
> >being shown up as a superficial ignoramus doesn't seem to be a
> >situation that he's equipped to comprehend, any more than he is
> >equipped to comprehend the (rock-solid) scientific case for
> >anthropological global warming
>
> You're shooting blanks, because you don't *do* anything.

And John is shooting blanks because he doesn't know much (about what I
"do", amongst other things).

Not an edifying spectacle.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen