> I mean really, what were they thinking. Oh wait, they must be Democrats.
Do try and read the news reports that you refer us to.
They weren't being paid for being illegal immigrants - in fact the story only identifies them as Muslim Arab immigrants so your "ïllegal" seems to be something that you have added to the story.
And they seem to be being compensated for wrongful arrest and the abuse they subsequently suffered (or claim to have suffered) while in detention.
You seem to be suffering from Ravinghordes' disorder, where you see a news story and decide that it supports your view of the world without paying enough attention to the actual facts being reported.
Bill Sloman wrote: > You seem to be suffering from Ravinghordes' disorder, where you see a > news story and decide that it supports your view of the world without > paying enough attention to the actual facts being reported.
On Nov 4, 3:40 pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:
> Bill Slomanwrote: > > You seem to be suffering from Ravinghordes' disorder, where you see a > > news story and decide that it supports your view of the world without > > paying enough attention to the actual facts being reported.
> Pots, kettles and black perhaps ?...
You'd like to think so, and since you are a Daily Telegraph reader, you save yourself the bother of actually reading the Fox News piece that Martin Riddle was pointing to
by believing what you want to believe. It makes you look stupid, but since you don't want to believe that you are presenting yourself as some kind of self-indulgent nitwit, you manage to ignore this particular consequence.
Bill Sloman wrote: > On Nov 4, 3:40 pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote: >> Bill Slomanwrote: >>> You seem to be suffering from Ravinghordes' disorder, where you see a >>> news story and decide that it supports your view of the world without >>> paying enough attention to the actual facts being reported.
>> Pots, kettles and black perhaps ?...
> You'd like to think so, and since you are a Daily Telegraph reader, > you save yourself the bother of actually reading the Fox News piece > that Martin Riddle was pointing to
> by believing what you want to believe. It makes you look stupid, but > since you don't want to believe that you are presenting yourself as > some kind of self-indulgent nitwit, you manage to ignore this > particular consequence.
> -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
I think you must be having another senior moment, Bill, as I don't read the Telegraph on a regular basis and never have. I must have told you this several times in the past so please wake up. In any case, how someone who lives in Holland can be so sure and confident in his knowledge of the English press beats me.
You really should get out more. Sitting alone and festering over the cruel way that life has failed to recognise your unique talents is an ultimately downhill path to tread...
>> I mean really, what were they thinking. Oh wait, they must be >> Democrats.
> Do try and read the news reports that you refer us to.
> They weren't being paid for being illegal immigrants - in fact the > story only identifies them as Muslim Arab immigrants so your "ïllegal" > seems to be something that you have added to the story.
> And they seem to be being compensated for wrongful arrest and the > abuse they subsequently suffered (or claim to have suffered) while in > detention.
> You seem to be suffering from Ravinghordes' disorder, where you see a > news story and decide that it supports your view of the world without > paying enough attention to the actual facts being reported.
> -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
You are, as usual, misinformed.
They were illegal immigrants and were deported. They had no business being in the US, they were here illegally.
> Bill Slomanwrote: > > On Nov 4, 3:40 pm, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote: > >> Bill Slomanwrote: > >>> You seem to be suffering from Ravinghordes' disorder, where you see a > >>> news story and decide that it supports your view of the world without > >>> paying enough attention to the actual facts being reported.
> >> Pots, kettles and black perhaps ?...
> > You'd like to think so, and since you are a Daily Telegraph reader, > > you save yourself the bother of actually reading the Fox News piece > > that Martin Riddle was pointing to
> > by believing what you want to believe. It makes you look stupid, but > > since you don't want to believe that you are presenting yourself as > > some kind of self-indulgent nitwit, you manage to ignore this > > particular consequence.
> > -- > >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> I think you must be having another senior moment, Bill, as I don't read > the Telegraph on a regular basis and never have.
Just enough to latch onto their more half-baked ideas.
> I must have told you > this several times in the past so please wake up.
Telegraph readers do tend to lie about their problem ...
>In any case, how > someone who lives in Holland can be so sure and confident in his > knowledge of the English press beats me.
I lived and worked in England for twenty years, and still get - and read - the Guardian Weekly. BBC1 and 2 are part of our local cable package. I can't say that I'm fascinated by the UK, but we do know what goes on there.
> You really should get out more. Sitting alone and festering over the > cruel way that life has failed to recognise your unique talents is an > ultimately downhill path to tread...
My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for want of my contribution.
> >> I mean really, what were they thinking. Oh wait, they must be > >> Democrats.
> > Do try and read the news reports that you refer us to.
> > They weren't being paid for being illegal immigrants - in fact the > > story only identifies them as Muslim Arab immigrants so your "ïllegal" > > seems to be something that you have added to the story.
> > And they seem to be being compensated for wrongful arrest and the > > abuse they subsequently suffered (or claim to have suffered) while in > > detention.
> > You seem to be suffering from Ravinghordes' disorder, where you see a > > news story and decide that it supports your view of the world without > > paying enough attention to the actual facts being reported.
> > -- > >Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
> You are, as usual, misinformed.
Since nothing the in the report that you cited identified them as illegal immigrants, and you failed to inform us about this point when you made your original post - beyond making your throw-away claim - we have been misinformed by you.
Until you adduce some evidence to support your claim that the people being compensated were actually illegal immigrants - and/or Democrats - it won't be clear how you've been misinforming us.
> They were illegal immigrants and were deported.
Or so you like to think.
> They had no business > being in the US, they were here illegally.
If this were true, they would have shared that status with a good proportion of the Mexicans who keep the US economy running. If the US got serious about expelling illegal immigrants, its economy would grind to a halt.
The people involved weren't incarcerated and abused because they were illegal immigrants, they were jumped on because they were Muslim Arabs - not members of any terrorist organisation, nor any kind of danger to the American public, which is more than can be said for the people who arrested and abused them.
On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >want of my contribution.
--- Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of the lack of your "contribution". ;)
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for > >want of my contribution.
> --- > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating people on the sci.electronics groups.
> I lived and worked in England for twenty years, and still get - and > read - the Guardian Weekly. BBC1 and 2 are part of our local cable > package. I can't say that I'm fascinated by the UK, but we do know > what goes on there.
You may think that you have some idea of what goes on in the uk, but only through the filter of a biased left wing rag and a self important BBC that is economical with the truth so as to not offend anyone. The Grauniad says it all really. I don't think you need to say anymore, ever.
No hard feelings though and if you ever make it to Oxford, i'll buy you a beer...
On Nov 5, 1:26 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for > >want of my contribution.
> --- > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
Since my contribution would probably not have included any 555's, I can understand why you might think that. Since we now get along fine without stone axes, despite their importance in the early days of civilisation, you point of view probably shouldn't be taken all that seriously.
> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd > > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good > > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for > > >want of my contribution.
> > --- > > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of > > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating > people on the sci.electronics groups.
Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would seem to fall into that catagory.
On Nov 5, 11:04 am, ChrisQ <m...@devnull.com> wrote:
> Bill Slomanwrote:
> > I lived and worked in England for twenty years, and still get - and > > read - the Guardian Weekly. BBC1 and 2 are part of our local cable > > package. I can't say that I'm fascinated by the UK, but we do know > > what goes on there.
> You may think that you have some idea of what goes on in the uk, but > only through the filter of a biased left wing rag and a self important > BBC that is economical with the truth so as to not offend anyone.
Funny that you should mention that. During the brief period when I was reading both the Guardian and the Telegraph (the latter mainly for the job ads) I noticed that the Telegraph had a habit of leaving out detail from stories that the Guardian reported more completely. In every case the details were of a nature that would have conflicted with the right-wing world view - constructive suggestions from trade unions never seemed to be reported in the Telegraph
> The Grauniad says it all really. I don't think you need to say anymore, ever.
Dream on. For what it is worth I get more from the New Scientist than the Guardian Weekly, but the New Scientist would be a little over your head.
> No hard feelings though and if you ever make it to Oxford, i'll buy you > a beer...
Unlikely. I was in Cambridge for three days last week - though I spent most of the Wednesday in London with one of my old friends from my days at EMI Central Research - but we hardly ever visit Oxford.
> Funny that you should mention that. During the brief period when I was > reading both the Guardian and the Telegraph (the latter mainly for the > job ads) I noticed that the Telegraph had a habit of leaving out > detail from stories that the Guardian reported more completely. In > every case the details were of a nature that would have conflicted > with the right-wing world view - constructive suggestions from trade > unions never seemed to be reported in the Telegraph
I think you have to filter and apply weighting to all 'news' sources. They all have their agendas and biases.
> Dream on. For what it is worth I get more from the New Scientist than > the Guardian Weekly, but the New Scientist would be a little over your > head.
Not really. I had a subscription to the NS for several years. It went through a bad patch where there were just too many irritating errors of fact which suggested that they hadn't done due diligence on their sources, or were just being sloppy. I stopped buying it at that time. Maybe it's improved now, but there's a lot of other good science on the web now as well.
> Unlikely. I was in Cambridge for three days last week - though I spent > most of the Wednesday in London with one of my old friends from my > days at EMI Central Research - but we hardly ever visit Oxford.
EMI Labs ?, now that's a name to conjure with. I well remember using their valve scopes and other test gear in the late 60's and early seventies. They did some good science and made good products elsewhere as well...
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> >wrote: >> John Fields wrote:
>> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >> > >want of my contribution.
>> > --- >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of >> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating >> people on the sci.electronics groups.
>Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would >seem to fall into that catagory.
--- If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 5, 1:26 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >> >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >> >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >> >want of my contribution.
>> --- >> Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of >> the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>Since my contribution would probably not have included any 555's, I >can understand why you might think that.
--- You make my point in that had you chosen to use 555's where and when it was appropriate, the abominations you created and foisted on society in order to avoid the hated 555 have, no doubt, had a deleterious effect. ---
>Since we now get along fine >without stone axes, despite their importance in the early days of >civilisation, you point of view probably shouldn't be taken all that >seriously.
--- I never thought about it that way, but since you brought it up it seems like you have quite a bit in common with stone axes.
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:56:33 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> > >wrote: > >> John Fields wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd > >> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good > >> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for > >> > >want of my contribution.
> >> > --- > >> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of > >> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
> >> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating > >> people on the sci.electronics groups.
> >Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would > >seem to fall into that catagory.
> --- > If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd > much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
Education is getting people to think for themselves in a useful way. It isn't about hitching anybody's wagon to someone else's wagon train.
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:54:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >On Nov 5, 1:26 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd > >> >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good > >> >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for > >> >want of my contribution.
> >> --- > >> Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of > >> the lack of your "contribution". ;)
> >Since my contribution would probably not have included any 555's, I > >can understand why you might think that.
> --- > You make my point in that had you chosen to use 555's where and when it > was appropriate, the abominations you created and foisted on society in > order to avoid the hated 555 have, no doubt, had a deleterious effect. > ---
And the "obominations" that I created and foisted on society were?
If you can't identify them, your claim that they would have been less abominable if they'd included a 555 or two does seem to be slightly arbitrary.
> >Since we now get along fine > >without stone axes, despite their importance in the early days of > >civilisation, you point of view probably shouldn't be taken all that > >seriously.
> --- > I never thought about it that way,
There's not much evidnece that you've ever thought about anything.
> but since you brought it up it seems > like you have quite a bit in common with stone axes.
Oh, really? There's presumably some cute analogy out there waiting to be invented by someone who has the capacity to invent some way in which I have something in common with a stone axe. Obviously you don't have that capacity - it's the kind of defect we'd expect in someone who is still enthusiastic about a component that was designed back in 1971.
Since then people have invented new and interesting components, but none of them has distracted you from your single-minded commitment to the 555 - you don't seem to have any spare capacity left to master another component.
<jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:56:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman ><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> >>wrote: >>> John Fields wrote:
>>> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >>> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >>> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >>> > >want of my contribution.
>>> > --- >>> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of >>> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>>> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating >>> people on the sci.electronics groups.
>>Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would >>seem to fall into that catagory.
>--- >If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd >much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:23:40 -0600, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:58:18 -0600, John Fields ><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:56:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> >>>wrote: >>>> John Fields wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>>> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >>>> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >>>> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >>>> > >want of my contribution.
>>>> > --- >>>> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of >>>> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>>>> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating >>>> people on the sci.electronics groups.
>>>Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would >>>seem to fall into that catagory.
>>--- >>If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd >>much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
>Cinders aren't white.
Slowman's "unique talents" ;-) Slowman is always good for a laugh.
It just came across the wire that Slowman's "unique talents" are going to be recognized by Japan... he's been designated as Imperial Honey Dipper Taster ;-)
...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
How severe can senility be? Just check out Slowman.
>>On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:58:18 -0600, John Fields >><jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:56:33 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman >>><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> >>>>wrote: >>>>> John Fields wrote:
>>>>> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman >>>>> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >>>>> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >>>>> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >>>>> > >want of my contribution.
>>>>> > --- >>>>> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of >>>>> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>>>>> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating >>>>> people on the sci.electronics groups.
>>>>Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would >>>>seem to fall into that catagory.
>>>--- >>>If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd >>>much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
>>Cinders aren't white.
>Slowman's "unique talents" ;-) Slowman is always good for a laugh.
>It just came across the wire that Slowman's "unique talents" are going >to be recognized by Japan... he's been designated as Imperial Honey >Dipper Taster ;-)
... and rides in the back of official honey-wagon, where he belongs
> >>>>On Nov 5, 5:15 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net> > >>>>wrote: > >>>>> John Fields wrote:
> >>>>> > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman > >>>>> > <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>>> > >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd > >>>>> > >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good > >>>>> > >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for > >>>>> > >want of my contribution.
> >>>>> > --- > >>>>> > Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of > >>>>> > the lack of your "contribution". ;)
> >>>>> So much for Bill's lame claims on aus.electronics that he's educating > >>>>> people on the sci.electronics groups.
> >>>>Some people aren't easy to educate, and both you and John Fields would > >>>>seem to fall into that catagory.
> >>>--- > >>>If, by "education", you mean hitching my wagon to your star, then I'd > >>>much prefer something other than a white dwarf.
> >>Cinders aren't white.
> >Slowman's "unique talents" ;-) Slowman is always good for a laugh.
> >It just came across the wire that Slowman's "unique talents" are going > >to be recognized by Japan... he's been designated as Imperial Honey > >Dipper Taster ;-)
> ... and rides in the back of official honey-wagon, where he belongs
For people who happen to live in areas without a proper sewage system, a "honey-wagon" is truck that goes around and collects human excreta.
The US doesn't like spending money on services that improve the health of the community as a whole, so many communities persist with this rather primitive form of sewage collection, which has long been superseded in other advanced industrialised countries.
Advanced industrial communites do still have honey waggons, but they service temporary and mobile toilets, and there are not enough of them to make the word part of the active vocabulary of the bulk of the population.
<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >On Nov 5, 4:13 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 04:54:50 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >On Nov 5, 1:26 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:59:20 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman
>> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >My "unique" talents were recognised for what they were worth. I'd >> >> >prefer to be working at the moment, but there are enough good >> >> >electronic engineers around that society isn't going to founder for >> >> >want of my contribution.
>> >> --- >> >> Actually, I think society is probably less likely to founder because of >> >> the lack of your "contribution". ;)
>> >Since my contribution would probably not have included any 555's, I >> >can understand why you might think that.
>> --- >> You make my point in that had you chosen to use 555's where and when it >> was appropriate, the abominations you created and foisted on society in >> order to avoid the hated 555 have, no doubt, had a deleterious effect. >> ---
>And the "obominations" that I created and foisted on society were?
--- Not "obominations", Bill, "abominations".
Perhaps you were thinking of our president??? ---
>If you can't identify them, your claim that they would have been less >abominable if they'd included a 555 or two does seem to be slightly >arbitrary.
--- If I were to keep records of your cock-ups I'd have to go buy an extra file cabinet or two, and I'm not really that interested in chronicling your failures. YMMV.
I do remember one in particular, though, where I had suggested a single 555 and you countered with some expensive, obsolete, dual something or other, 16 pin monstrosity with performance specs no better than a 555's. ---
>> >Since we now get along fine >> >without stone axes, despite their importance in the early days of >> >civilisation, you point of view probably shouldn't be taken all that >> >seriously.
>> --- >> I never thought about it that way,
>There's not much evidnece that you've ever thought about anything.
--- "evidnece"??? Tsk,tsk,tsk. ---
>> but since you brought it up it seems >> like you have quite a bit in common with stone axes.
>Oh, really? There's presumably some cute analogy out there waiting to >be invented by someone who has the capacity to invent some way in >which I have something in common with a stone axe.
--- No invention required, just read between the lines.
However, since you seem to have trouble with even that degree of subtlety, I'll spell it out for you: Stone axes and you may have been important once upon a time, but in the present you're both largely useless. ---
>Obviously you don't >have that capacity - it's the kind of defect we'd expect in someone >who is still enthusiastic about a component that was designed back in >1971.
--- Hey, it wasn't me with the defect which kept you from figuring out the analogy, and why shouldn't I be enthusiastic about an almost forty year old component if it's the perfect thing for the job at hand? ---
>Since then people have invented new and interesting components, but >none of them has distracted you from your single-minded commitment to >the 555 - you don't seem to have any spare capacity left to master >another component.
--- Well, since you don't have access to abse you _would_ be in the dark about what components I use and in which ways I use them.
Same thing goes for stuff that never gets to USENET.
|
