Bank of Batteries ?

[Spurious Response]

Dimbulb will never be on the same street as true wisdom but has
market cornered on everything false.

Said the zero contribution, retarded yap dog that spends his time
nipping at my heels.

 

[Hatunen]

1. These are properly known as collective nouns, not plural nouns.

2. The word battery is itself a collective noun (for battery of cells,
cf. the army term battery of guns.) Early domestic radio receivers
(approx. 1925) required low-voltage direct current, which was
supplied by an acid-filled device that had to be recharged at
intervals.

Interesting. And that supplied the plate voltage of about 90V?

 

[Spurious Response]

On reflection, I retract the "interestingly" although I do still wonder
why anyone would want to call themselves "Spurious Response". Does the
expression have some technical meaning among electrical engineers? If
not, the poster might like to consider the OED definition:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Of persons: Begot or born out of wedlock; illegitimate, bastard,
adulterous.

b. fig. or in fig. context.

c. Characterized by bastardy or illegitimacy.

d. Supposititious. rare.

2. Having an illegitimate or irregular origin; not properly
qualified or constituted.

3. Superficially resembling or simulating, but lacking the genuine
character or qualities of, something; not true or genuine; false, sham,
counterfeit: a. Of material things.
Freq. in more or less specific use in Anat., Bot., etc.

b. Of qualities, conditions, etc.

c. In the specific names of animals, birds, etc.

d. In medical or pathological use.

4. Of a writing, etc.: Not really proceeding from its reputed
origin, source, or author; not genuine or authentic; forged.

b. Similarly of words or passages.

5. Characterized by spuriousness or falseness.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Absolute proof that the last place you belong is in a technical group.

Your post is spurious. My reply is the response to that, resulting in
a clean signal to those with at least half a brain.

 

[Spurious Response]

In that, sometimes batteries are called cells, and sometimes cells
are called batteries, but mostly they are all called batteries. This
is absolutely no problem to the consumer or even to a professional.

I never stated that it was a problem. I merely stated that it was
incorrect, and that is a fact.

 

[Spurious Response]

Here's a sampling of dictionary definitions from onelook.com, all of
which recognize the extension of the meaning of "battery" to single
cells:

Compact Oxford English Dictionary:
· noun (pl. batteries) 1 a device containing one or more electrical
cells, for use as a source of power.

An English retard authored that definition.

Merriam-Webster:
b : a group of two or more cells connected together to furnish
electric current; also : a single cell that furnishes electric current
<a flashlight battery>

Most flashlights use more than one cell. This is yet another dope
authoring dictionary definitions that are incorrect.

Cambridge online:
a device that produces electricity to provide power for radios, cars,
etc:

Are all the colleges in the UK this retarded?

American Heritage Dictionary:
6. Electricity a. Two or more connected cells that produce a direct
current by converting chemical energy to electrical energy. b. A
single cell, such as a dry cell, that produces an electric current.

They started out OK, then reverted to stupidity. Likely due to that
author ALSO leeching his definitions from other incorrect sources.

Merriam Webster got it right, and then even they added this anomalous
"also" tag-on.

You may have your own convention,

My "convention" is fact. Just because a bunch of dopey fucking people
(millions actually) over a few decades mutated it doesn't change what it
STILL really is.

of course, but but convening with
yourself is just Oneanonlyism.

I am quite sure that many share my correct view. Perhaps one day, you
too will garner a clue.

 

[Spurious Response]

Missed it by *that* much ...

Here's the pertinent excerpt from it:

also : a single cell that furnishes electric
current <a flashlight battery>

Except that what it pertains to is that the dopes authoring
dictionaries around the world are all jacking each other's brains.

Mental masturbation is a disease. You appear to *also* be infected.

 

[Spurious Response]

It does have a technical meaning in electrical engineering, pretty
close to the dictionary meaning, with the added connotation of
nuisance or noise. Seems appropriate.

Except you missed the target.

My post is not spurious. I respond to spurious posts with a clean
signal.

Try again.

 

[Spurious Response]

OED:

10. a. _Galvanism_. An apparatus consisting of a series of cells,
each containing the essentials for producing voltaic electricity,
connected together. Also used of any such apparatus for producing
voltaic electricity, whether of one cell or more.

Google Books shows "single-cell battery" back to 1849 (with hits
throughout the remainder of the century). "One-cell battery" first
shows up in 1857. By the time they were packaged up for consumer
purchase, the usage was already established.

Leave it to the English to **** up the facts, and for the rest of the
world to take over a hundred years to catch it.

My electronics instructor caught it, as does anyone with a grain of
common sense.

I am quite sure that the pioneers of the industry full well knew the
difference, and had they read dictionaries often enough, they would have
insured that it be corrected.

I'll bet that Faraday and Galvani knew it.

 

[krw]

Said the zero contribution, retarded yap dog that spends his time
nipping at my heels.

Your contribution here is? (hint to newcomers to the engineering
groups, his "contribution" is negative and always has been).

Dimbulb, you'll never change, or grow up.

 

[krw]

I can just picture it. Your sister asks you to change the battery in her
vibrator, and you refuse her this favour because she has used the word
"battery" incorrectly. As a result she has to leave one prick and search
for another.

When I was teaching potential young engineers, I would come down on them
like a ton of bricks if they used technical jargon incorrectly _when it
was important to be precise_. At the same time, if they said they had to
log in to a computer I wouldn't complain that they were typing on a
keyboard and not logging the operation in a log book. If they had to
leave the laboratory for a leak, I wouldn't send them off to the Fluid
Mechanics laboratory. The meaning of a word can depend on context. The
importance of precision also depends on context. Using a 22 pF
capacitor when it was supposed to be a 22 nF capacitor is a serious
error when you're constructing an electronic device; but the difference
is unimportant if you're constructing a sculpture out of used parts.

To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the
heaven: a time to use technical language, and a time to use plain
English; a time to get a life, and a time to FOAD. When you have
understood the difference, Grasshopper, you will be just a little closer
to true wisdom.

Wow Peter! You tied a long-standing record. Dimmie posted eight
responses to yours. Nice work! I'm still proud of seven, but you da
man!

 

[Spurious Response]

While deporable, it's quite evident that sellers of cells pretty
much know the buying public won't understand what a blister pack
of "1.5V cells" is.

Pretty sad then, that the world cannot be educated on such a simple,
easily understood premise.

In fact... I think your assertion is quite wrong.

 

[Spurious Response]

Interesting. And that supplied the plate voltage of about 90V?

Think "Crystal Radio".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio_receiver#1920s_and_1930s

 

[Spurious Response]

Yes, but it would mean something completely different from what was
intended.

Sorry, but what was intended was what I just wrote. What was written
carried no meaning at all.

There's no need to get cross about it.

I didn't like her tone. Got a problem with that?

Hmm. Very interesting -- but not funny.

Sure it is. Still fits too.

 

[tony cooper]

Is everyone in that group as retarded as you are?

Sorry, but "some quite interestingly cross posters..." is NOT correct.

"Some quite interesting cross-posters" would have been right.

What is interesting is that you missed it. I hope you don't represent
the many... Likely more like "the foo".

The two sentences have different meanings. "Interestingly cross
posters" means that the posters are cross in an interesting manner;
observing their crossness is interesting. "Interesting cross posters"
means that the posters, who are cross-posting to more than one
newsgroup, are interesting.

Laura used a play on words that obviously escaped you. As you
continue to add comments, it becomes apparent that more escapes you
than is caught by you. Your grasp is hampered by mental mittens.
If you are going to play in this group, you have to step your game up.
If you have a game.

Laura later amended her view to indicate that she was mistaken in her
belief that you were interestingly cross. I agree. You are just
run-of-the-mill surly. No one has suggested that you are interesting
in any other aspect.

If the word "cross" is unfamiliar to you, information on the meaning
is available in the dictionary.

 

[Robert Bannister]

Is everyone in that group as retarded as you are?

Sorry, but "some quite interestingly cross posters..." is NOT correct.

"Some quite interesting cross-posters" would have been right.

Are you an idiot or just spurious? It was quite clear that Laura meant
"cross posters", ie angry posters.

 

[Murray Arnow]

A masterful squelch. Nothing po about it.

Masterful, shmasterful, what is it in our egos that allows us to put a
fist into these tar babies? You know that no argument, no matter how well
constructed, will ever bring these people out of their insecurities and
accept another argument.

A poster so paranoid that he can only dish out abuse behind a pseudonym is
not worth the time. Time is our most valuable non-renewable resource.
Don't squander it on these doofuses.

 

[krw]

Are you an idiot or just spurious? It was quite clear that Laura meant
"cross posters", ie angry posters.

Spurious Emission (AKA Dimbulb)? He's one of the chronic idiots on
the engineering groups. He knows nothing but is fun to poke. His
response is quite spurious.

 

[LFS]

Is everyone in that group as retarded as you are?

Sorry, but "some quite interestingly cross posters..." is NOT correct.

"Some quite interesting cross-posters" would have been right.

Oh goody, I never get the chance to do this in aue:

WHOOSH!

 

[tony cooper]

She isn't IN a technical group.

What are you talking about? In another thread I'm right in the middle
of a highly technical discussion about plumbing lines and how a knob
thingy can be attached to the gizmo so it turns off the water when it
should be turning on the water if you're right-handed or red-haired.

How freakin' technical do you want?

 

[Spurious Response]

Masterful, shmasterful, what is it in our egos that allows us to put a
fist into these tar babies?

You're a fucking retard.

You know that no argument,

Is that what you call that petty baby bullshit?

no matter how well
constructed,

It was quite poorly constructed.

will ever bring these people out of their insecurities and
accept another argument.

Your petty E-1 grade assessments are about as mature as a freshly laid
turd.

A poster so paranoid that he can only dish out abuse behind a pseudonym is
not worth the time.

As if I would post to Usenet with anything other than a nym. You think
I want dipshit retards like you stalking me?

Time is our most valuable non-renewable resource.

Is that why your dumb ass made this post?

Don't squander it on these doofuses.

IKYABWAI?

As far as squandering "time" goes... I am quite sure your stupid ass
will respond again.

In case you are behind the curve (I am quite that is the case), all
Usenet folks "squander" their time here.

Get a clue.