Can Christian Electronic Designers Design?
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 2 Apr 2010 10:17 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:29:34 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >What I'm focusing on is and gaining evidence for is how taboo it is to >ask what religion one is in. --- You're a liar. What you're focusing on is trying to extend the length of this thread by asking annoyingly inappropriate questions and hoping for replies. _Any_ replies. --- >Why is it taboo? --- It isn't, but in this forum it's off-topic, and your derogatory prelude to asking it certainly makes it inappropriate. --- >What is at stake? Why the secret? Why is this >untouchable? Is there a price to pay after announcing one is Christian >(or other)? --- All nonsense questions, posed for the sole purpose of irritating the reader and eliciting a response. _Any_ response. --- >What's more crazy.. Asking Larkin if he thinks Michael Jackson is still >alive or asking what religion he is in? >Is making one's religious belief public in an engineering forum >extremely sensitive? If so.. why? What is the fear. >Why do people resort to personal attacks, turn into cry babies and loose >their balls when it comes to announcing their religion? --- Since you claim to be an atheist and have vociferously denigrated all religions, it stands to reason that by asking someone which set of religious beliefs they adhere to all you're trying to do is gain a toehold which you can use as a platform to hurl even more gratuitous insults. Larkin, I think, is being wise by letting you stew in your own juice while the rest of us add fuel to the fire and watch you melt down. --- >Krw is lying that Larkin has written what religion he is in. >Krw can demonstate he is not lying by proving me wrong(and look smart) >by saying what religion (or other) Larkin is in. >But he can't cause he's lying. --- He could have made a simple mistake, which certainly doesn't make him a liar. You, on the other hand, are the liar. And not just a liar, a despicable liar. JF
From: John Fields on 2 Apr 2010 10:22 On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:43:05 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> wrote: >If you really want to make me look stupid then agree with krw that >Larkin wrote what religion he is in. --- Since _you've_ already made yourself look plenty stupid, why bother? --- >And then quote the part where >Larkin specifies what religion. >That'll make me look more stupid than just picking on semantics or my >bad wrighting. --- Again, why bother when it's so easy watching you do it all by yourself? JF
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 13:57 Good points. I'll respond a point that caught my interest. So are you saying that announcing ones religion in an engineering forum only serves to be a target for ridicule? Examples of ridicule.... You're an atheist. You're evil in that you don't accept concepts that make people feel good. You think you're smarter than everybody else with your atheism. Or on the flip side... You're a Christian. The religion in your mind is like a fly in your soup. You spoon around the fly. With analfucks in here that make fun spelling, it suppose it's best to reduce targets for ridicule. I sometimes measure the validity of what I write by the quality of the ridicule. Some people make good points when they ridicule. Others ridicule like babies. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 13:57 In article <bi5br5dh3g4usnj97h6mqoke5oim5bll87(a)4ax.com>, OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org says... > > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010 22:43:05 -0700, D from BC <myrealaddress(a)comic.com> > wrote: > > >bad wrighting. > > > You can say that again. I'll bet that you have never successfully > 'wrought' anything. Bwuahahahahah! Gee.. You're easily baited. Now I'm wondering how long I can keep you distracted with deliberate misspelings. -- D from BC British Columbia
From: D from BC on 2 Apr 2010 14:19
In article <4bb5adbd$0$5591$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au>, jt(a)techniciansyndrome.org.invalid says... > > Jon Kirwan wrote: > > > Well, there are other points. Such as whether or not it > > qualifies as 'dishonest' for Rigol to sit mum while selling > > the exact same physical item for nearly twice the price. > > I was under the impression it was more like a ~$200 difference. I > briefly checked ebay for prices, and found ~$650-~$850 between the models. > That sounded fair to me, which made it a challenge to support my own > argument that it was the same hardware. > > Double price is another ball game altogether. They deserve what they get. Now I'm wondering if my Agilent 100Mhz DSO is secretly a 200Mhz DSO? -- D from BC British Columbia |