Connect with us

messing with the power connection

Discussion in 'Electrical Engineering' started by [email protected], Feb 16, 2008.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. krw

    krw Guest

    You should. It fits you perfectly, Doc.
     
  2. krw

    krw Guest

    Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
    understand that you're an ass' behind?
     
  3. Guest

    | In article <>, phil-news-
    | says...
    |> | In article <>,
    |> | says...
    | <snip>
    |> |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
    |> |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
    |> |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
    |> |> | bedrooms or not.
    |> |>
    |> |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
    |> |
    |> | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
    |> | come by it naturally?
    |>
    |> Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
    |> invention and implementation?
    |
    | Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
    | understand that you're an ass' behind?

    Of course I understand quotation marks. What do they have to do with
    invention vs. implementation?
     
  4. Guest

    | krw wrote:
    |>
    |> In article <>, phil-news-
    |> says...
    |> > | In article <>,
    |> > | says...
    |> <snip>
    |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
    |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
    |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
    |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
    |> > |>
    |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
    |> > |
    |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
    |> > | come by it naturally?
    |> >
    |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
    |> > invention and implementation?
    |>
    |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
    |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
    |
    |
    | They never do. :(

    I'm glad to see the two of you together. Now all I need to do is get
    the other 4 of your type from other newsgroups to job you, and you all
    will be together.
     
  5. krw

    krw Guest

    Good grief Gert! I thought you could at least figure that out,
    after having it held right in front of your stupid face! Wow,
    you're dense!
     
  6. krw

    krw Guest

    1000 miles isn't together.
    where "your type" == people who have pointed out your arrogance over
    your ignorance
    Whatever that means. Phil, you've totally lost it.
     
  7. Guest

    | wrote:
    |>
    |> | krw wrote:
    |> |>
    |> |> In article <>, phil-news-
    |> |> says...
    |> |> > | In article <>,
    |> |> > | says...
    |> |> <snip>
    |> |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
    |> |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
    |> |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
    |> |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
    |> |> > |>
    |> |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
    |> |> > |
    |> |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
    |> |> > | come by it naturally?
    |> |> >
    |> |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
    |> |> > invention and implementation?
    |> |>
    |> |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
    |> |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
    |> |
    |> |
    |> | They never do. :(
    |>
    |> I'm glad to see the two of you together. Now all I need to do is get
    |> the other 4 of your type from other newsgroups to job you, and you all
    |> will be together.
    |
    |
    | "To job" What is that, some kinky thing you enjoy doing?

    Typo. Should be "to join".
     
  8. Guest

    | In article <>, phil-news-
    | says...
    |> | krw wrote:
    |> |>
    |> |> In article <>, phil-news-
    |> |> says...
    |> |> > | In article <>,
    |> |> > | says...
    |> |> <snip>
    |> |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
    |> |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
    |> |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
    |> |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
    |> |> > |>
    |> |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
    |> |> > |
    |> |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
    |> |> > | come by it naturally?
    |> |> >
    |> |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
    |> |> > invention and implementation?
    |> |>
    |> |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
    |> |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
    |> |
    |> |
    |> | They never do. :(
    |>
    |> I'm glad to see the two of you together.
    |
    | 1000 miles isn't together.
    |
    |> Now all I need to do is get the other 4 of your type
    |
    | where "your type" == people who have pointed out your arrogance over
    | your ignorance

    Sure, describe it as that. I call it "crab apples of usenet". These are
    the ones that choose to make personal attacks regarding accused errors but
    do not specifically address the supposed errors.
     
  9. Guest

    | krw wrote:
    |>
    |> In article <>, phil-news-
    |> says...
    |> > | krw wrote:
    |> > |>
    |> > |> In article <>, phil-news-
    |> > |> says...
    |> > |> > | In article <>,
    |> > |> > | says...
    |> > |> <snip>
    |> > |> > |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
    |> > |> > |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
    |> > |> > |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
    |> > |> > |> | bedrooms or not.
    |> > |> > |>
    |> > |> > |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
    |> > |> > |
    |> > |> > | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
    |> > |> > | come by it naturally?
    |> > |> >
    |> > |> > Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
    |> > |> > invention and implementation?
    |> > |>
    |> > |> Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
    |> > |> understand that you're an ass' behind?
    |> > |
    |> > |
    |> > | They never do. :(
    |> >
    |> > I'm glad to see the two of you together.
    |>
    |> 1000 miles isn't together.
    |>
    |> > Now all I need to do is get the other 4 of your type
    |>
    |> where "your type" == people who have pointed out your arrogance over
    |> your ignorance
    |>
    |> > from other newsgroups to job you, and you all
    |> > will be together.
    |>
    |> Whatever that means. Phil, you've totally lost it.
    |>
    |> --
    |> Keith
    |
    |
    | Keith, they would chew his sorry ass up, and spit it out on SED. :)

    There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet.
     
  10. Guest

    | In article <>, phil-news-
    | says...
    |> | In article <>, phil-news-
    |> | says...
    |> |> | In article <>,
    |> |> | says...
    |> | <snip>
    |> |> |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
    |> |> |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
    |> |> |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
    |> |> |> | bedrooms or not.
    |> |> |>
    |> |> |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
    |> |> |
    |> |> | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
    |> |> | come by it naturally?
    |> |>
    |> |> Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
    |> |> invention and implementation?
    |> |
    |> | Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
    |> | understand that you're an ass' behind?
    |>
    |> Of course I understand quotation marks. What do they have to do with
    |> invention vs. implementation?
    |
    | Good grief Gert! I thought you could at least figure that out,
    | after having it held right in front of your stupid face! Wow,
    | you're dense!

    Really? You make up some concept about quotation marks and think it relates
    to invention vs. innovation, and just expect people to read your mind?
     
  11. Guest

    | wrote:
    |>
    |> There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet.
    |
    |
    | Then you've either lead a 'very' sheltered online life, or you're the
    | biggest liar on usenet. Either way, you can't be trusted.

    There may well be a lot more people on Usenet that act like idiots and
    make personal attacks on people whose post they dislike, and assert that
    there are errors without being specific in pointing them out, or don't
    understand the logic of a different context in which the post applies,
    but I don't read that many groups to have encountered that many of you.
    I do periodically have disagreements with many people. I win some and
    I lose some. But what I have with idiots like you just degenerates into
    a little spat because you guys don't really care to approach the facts
    and logic (afraid to lose?). All this experience you supposedly have
    means nothing to me anymore because I have no way to know if what you
    post fits within it, or if you are just mouthing off at someone because
    you don't like them or what they say.
     
  12. krw

    krw Guest

    No, I expect people here to be half-literate.
     
  13. krw

    krw Guest

    Crap, Phil! You oughta get your eyes checked. I only see one
    MikeT.
     
  14. Guest

    |> There's only about 6 of you I've seen on the whole Usenet.
    |
    | Crap, Phil! You oughta get your eyes checked. I only see one
    | MikeT.

    The "you" is the general class of people that are acting like jerks.
    You () are one of them. There's the bud guy here.
    The rest are in other newsgroups.
     
  15. Guest

    | In article <>, phil-news-
    | says...
    |> | In article <>, phil-news-
    |> | says...
    |> |> | In article <>, phil-news-
    |> |> | says...
    |> |> |> | In article <>,
    |> |> |> | says...
    |> |> | <snip>
    |> |> |> |> | One could do an in-USA secure web browser too, just don't get caught
    |> |> |> |> | "exporting" it (laptop). Since the Internet is "free", the whole
    |> |> |> |> | thing wend down in flames, silly stories about kids in their
    |> |> |> |> | bedrooms or not.
    |> |> |> |>
    |> |> |> |> Whatever. But it was not re-invented. It was re-implemented.
    |> |> |> |
    |> |> |> | To you intentionally compete in the Dimbulb competition, or do you
    |> |> |> | come by it naturally?
    |> |> |>
    |> |> |> Your response makes no sense. Do you not understand the difference between
    |> |> |> invention and implementation?
    |> |> |
    |> |> | Do you not understand the purpose of quotation marks? Do you not
    |> |> | understand that you're an ass' behind?
    |> |>
    |> |> Of course I understand quotation marks. What do they have to do with
    |> |> invention vs. implementation?
    |> |
    |> | Good grief Gert! I thought you could at least figure that out,
    |> | after having it held right in front of your stupid face! Wow,
    |> | you're dense!
    |>
    |> Really? You make up some concept about quotation marks and think it relates
    |> to invention vs. innovation, and just expect people to read your mind?
    |
    | No, I expect people here to be half-literate.

    So then don't make stuff up.
     
  16. krw

    krw Guest

    Why, isn't that kind of you. BTW, I did.
    What can I tell you; the truth hurts.
    MANY here have. Apparently it flies way over your head. ...or
    perhaps through your ears.
     
  17. Guest

    | MANY here have. Apparently it flies way over your head. ...or
    | perhaps through your ears.

    Let's see ... you, Michael A. Terrell, and that bud-- person. People that
    don't speak specific. Ooooh ... I'm so impressed ... not.
     
  18. Guest

    | Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like
    | it! ;-)

    I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do
    respond.
     
  19. Guest

    | wrote:
    |>
    |>
    |> | Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like
    |> | it! ;-)
    |>
    |> I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do
    |> respond.
    |
    |
    | So what? You are almost always wrong.

    If you think that is the case, then why did you pick this particular topic
    to accuse me of being wrong about (and still not be specific about exactly
    what was wrong nor suggest an alternative "correct" statement)? I know
    you have picked some others, too. But if your assertion that I am almost
    always wrong is true, and given that you have only made these accusations
    on a few of my posts, then you must have skipped over quite many that you
    have thus left unchallenged.

    Maybe what you should do is look at every post I make that is not part of
    a thread or subthread you are already "debating" me in, and narrow down a
    very specific point (or points) you think I am making that is wrong, and
    post what you believe is the correct statement.

    For example, if I post:

    1 + 1 = 3

    You would following up with:

    Phil, your statement "1 + 1 = 3" is incorrect. The correct statement
    would be "1 + 1 = 2".

    But be sure you get the context correct. If I am posting something that is
    intentionally using an error as an example, you would look silly to refute
    it in that context. For example I might post (in response to something):

    That would be as wrong as saying 1 + 1 = 3.

    Then you should look at the context, too. Perhaps in light of that context
    you might find the relationship being wrong. If so, explain that.

    The important points are to always be sure you clearly understand what the
    context is. If in doubt, ask. If you got the context wrong, your could
    look silly refuting my post. And always be as specific as you possibly
    can be. Narrow things down to exactly the points that are wrong within
    the working context.
     
  20. Guest

    | wrote:
    |>
    |> | wrote:
    |> |>
    |> |>
    |> |> | Google: ka9wgn You find 13,500 "cases" of Phil, sliced anyway you like
    |> |> | it! ;-)
    |> |>
    |> |> I'm a fun target for people that like to get a response because I do
    |> |> respond.
    |> |
    |> |
    |> | So what? You are almost always wrong.
    |>
    |> If you think that is the case, then why did you pick this particular topic
    |> to accuse me of being wrong about (and still not be specific about exactly
    |> what was wrong nor suggest an alternative "correct" statement)? I know
    |> you have picked some others, too. But if your assertion that I am almost
    |> always wrong is true, and given that you have only made these accusations
    |> on a few of my posts, then you must have skipped over quite many that you
    |> have thus left unchallenged.
    |>
    |> Maybe what you should do is look at every post I make that is not part of
    |> a thread or subthread you are already "debating" me in, and narrow down a
    |> very specific point (or points) you think I am making that is wrong, and
    |> post what you believe is the correct statement.
    |>
    |> For example, if I post:
    |>
    |> 1 + 1 = 3
    |>
    |> You would following up with:
    |>
    |> Phil, your statement "1 + 1 = 3" is incorrect. The correct statement
    |> would be "1 + 1 = 2".
    |
    |
    |
    | Because almost everything you post is wrong. You NEVER have ANYONE
    | backing up your wild claims.

    I don't see anyone backing up YOUR wild claims. In fact, it is very rare
    that anyone does a followup to say "yeah, that guy is right, I back him up
    with his wild claims". Even take "wild" out of that sentence, and there
    is no common practice of such. That's the way it has been on Usenet since
    I started using it in 1986.
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-