more EE Times nonsense
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 28 Apr 2010 04:42 On Apr 28, 5:48 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 02:09:57 -0700 (PDT),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: > >On Apr 24, 10:51 pm, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> > >wrote: > > >> When dealing with the likes of you however, your chagrin at being found > >> in error is so great that in order to try to get away you're forced to > >> traverse that tangled web of insult and obfuscation you've been weaving > >> for so long that it takes a great deal of verbiage, all of it relevant, > >> in order to corner you. > > >A claim that founders on the fact that I do post mistakes from time to > >time - nowhere near as often as you'd like to think - and when someone > >points this out I post an apology and thank them for the correction. > > >The most recent example was the fifth post in the thread "Very low > >frequency 100 microvolt/sec triangle ramp with adjustable limits and > >slope" on the 29th January 2010. > > It's there, of course, but the only reason you responded in the way you > did was because there was nowhere else for you to go. Or, to put it another way, I'd actually made a mistake, and recognised it when it was pointed out to me. > >The next post in the thread was a > >comment from you expressing surprise, which you do seem to have > >forgotten. > > True. I don't keep an indexed file of your posts and my replies to them > handy but, since your admitting to error is so rare, perhaps I should > have forwarded a copy of your concession to Ripley's "Believe It Or > Not!" I did have to go back another year to find another example, in the thread "Does not have any harmonics" on the 3rd January 2008, where you caught me out on the nature of the scatters responsible for the blue colour of the sky - not suspended dust, as I thought, but the oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the air. I don't often make mistakes. > >This makes your comment a mistake, for which you need to apologise. > > Hardly. > > My comment was about the effort required to corner you if you were > allowed to traverse your web. > > In this instance you weren't, and you were forced to capitulate, so my > comment still stands. Your comment reflects your perception. Because you are both ignorant and prone to misinterpret other people's text, you see errors where none exist, and complain bitterly - and at length - about poster being unwilling to admit the - non-existent - error, In other words, you bark up the wrong tree, then get a bee in your bonnet about the supposed error. It is - initially - funny, but you do persist. > >> >> A sidestep on your part in an attempt to avoid the truth. > > >> >What "truth"? > > >> --- > >> The truth that you'll go to great lengths in order to keep from having > >> to admit that you were wrong. > > >Which happens to be a lie - see above. > > Nothing above proves that it's a lie, since it only addresses your > admission of error in a single instance. It should have been enough to remind you of other examples, which do exist - see above. > ><snipped the remaining - equally deluded - comment> > > Don't address it, just insult it vociferously and pray that it'll go > away? You don't give up, no matter how wrong-headed your claim. Paying attention to your elaborations is a complete waste of time. -- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
From: Archimedes' Lever on 28 Apr 2010 07:56 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 01:04:15 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman <bill.sloman(a)ieee.org> wrote: >Where are the lightning bolts when we could really appreciate them? You're a Karmic retard.
From: dagmargoodboat on 28 Apr 2010 09:14 On Apr 26, 5:05 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:53:25 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >On Apr 25, 8:38 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> > >wrote: > >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> > Obama doesn't 'extend' health insurance to anyone. He simply requires > >> > they buy over-priced insurance that covers more things than they could > >> > possibly need. If they won't, they go to jail. > > >> I received an email the other day stating that my VA health care may > >> not be considered as insurance, even though I'm now 100% disabled. > > >I'm not familiar with the different veteran's benefit programs, but > >AFAICT your VA coverage should count as 'minimum acceptable coverage' > >under Sec. 5000(f)(1)(A) of HR3590, the 1st Intolerable Act of 2010. > > >So, at least you don't (and shouldn't) have to worry about the > >mandate, brother Michael. (I've quoted the text below) > > >Regular people who ever change jobs, of course, will be forced to buy > >the new, bigger, dumber, more expensive insurance. > > Change jobs? Our insurance company is already adding absolutely unnecessary > "features" to our insurance plan because Obummer thinks it's a good idea. The good news is the next time any of us guys get pregnant, our prenatal care will be fully covered (Sec. 1302b). And, Sec. 4207 guarantees us reasonable break times and a dedicated, private facility, at work, for breastfeeding our babies. Oh, and your drug rehab is covered too (Sec. 1302(b)(1)(E)). But don't do drugs while nursing guys--that's double-dipping. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 28 Apr 2010 18:09 On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:14:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Apr 26, 5:05�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:53:25 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >On Apr 25, 8:38�pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> >> >wrote: >> >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> > Obama doesn't 'extend' health insurance to anyone. �He simply requires >> >> > they buy over-priced insurance that covers more things than they could >> >> > possibly need. �If they won't, they go to jail. >> >> >> � �I received an email the other day stating that my VA health care may >> >> not be considered as insurance, even though I'm now 100% disabled. >> >> >I'm not familiar with the different veteran's benefit programs, but >> >AFAICT your VA coverage should count as 'minimum acceptable coverage' >> >under Sec. 5000(f)(1)(A) of HR3590, the 1st Intolerable Act of 2010. >> >> >So, at least you don't (and shouldn't) have to worry about the >> >mandate, brother Michael. (I've quoted the text below) >> >> >Regular people who ever change jobs, of course, will be forced to buy >> >the new, bigger, dumber, more expensive insurance. >> >> Change jobs? �Our insurance company is already adding absolutely unnecessary >> "features" to our insurance plan because Obummer thinks it's a good idea. > >The good news is the next time any of us guys get pregnant, our >prenatal care will be fully covered (Sec. 1302b). And, Sec. 4207 >guarantees us reasonable break times and a dedicated, private >facility, at work, for breastfeeding our babies. > >Oh, and your drug rehab is covered too (Sec. 1302(b)(1)(E)). But >don't do drugs while nursing guys--that's double-dipping. DimBulb's psychiatrist will be covered, too, so maybe there is hope and change.
From: dagmargoodboat on 29 Apr 2010 01:15
On Apr 28, 5:09 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:14:16 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >On Apr 26, 5:05 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 20:53:25 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >On Apr 25, 8:38 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...(a)earthlink.net> > >> >wrote: > >> >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> > Obama doesn't 'extend' health insurance to anyone. He simply requires > >> >> > they buy over-priced insurance that covers more things than they could > >> >> > possibly need. If they won't, they go to jail. > > >> >> I received an email the other day stating that my VA health care may > >> >> not be considered as insurance, even though I'm now 100% disabled. > > >> >I'm not familiar with the different veteran's benefit programs, but > >> >AFAICT your VA coverage should count as 'minimum acceptable coverage' > >> >under Sec. 5000(f)(1)(A) of HR3590, the 1st Intolerable Act of 2010. > > >> >So, at least you don't (and shouldn't) have to worry about the > >> >mandate, brother Michael. (I've quoted the text below) > > >> >Regular people who ever change jobs, of course, will be forced to buy > >> >the new, bigger, dumber, more expensive insurance. > > >> Change jobs? Our insurance company is already adding absolutely unnecessary > >> "features" to our insurance plan because Obummer thinks it's a good idea. > > >The good news is the next time any of us guys get pregnant, our > >prenatal care will be fully covered (Sec. 1302b). And, Sec. 4207 > >guarantees us reasonable break times and a dedicated, private > >facility, at work, for breastfeeding our babies. > > >Oh, and your drug rehab is covered too (Sec. 1302(b)(1)(E)). But > >don't do drugs while nursing guys--that's double-dipping. > > DimBulb's psychiatrist will be covered, too, so maybe there is hope and > change. I heard something funny today--the bill guarantees your kid can stay on your policy until he's 26. So, people are asking their companies. Upshot? You can do that, but you'll have to pay more, of course--the insurance companies are allowed to charge you. The law's freebies aren't free. So, you'll have to pay for your new mandatory prenatal / pregnancy coverage, fellows. Grandmas have to buy it too, natch. -- Cheers, James Arthur |