Bernanke, Unable to refinance his home!

te:

"Truth" is only a defense in libel cases when the person libelled is a publ ic figure, and the public then has an over-riding right to know the details of their character.

Since krw's perceptions are bizarre distortions of reality, his imaginary r evelations about the people he insults don't have much to do with "truth" a s it is generally understood.

As I seem to have mentioned before, krw's interpretation of "true" is merel y something that krw agrees with . The possibility that he might believe so mething that wasn't true does seem to escape him, though it's painfully obv ious to the rest of us that most of what he believes is either false or irr elevant.

I found this quite interesting.

So he takes every thing that people accuse of causing financial crises and then shows that only one of them - mounting private debt - is even correlated with financial crises.

I'm not a specialist so I don't know if the methodology is purely sound. But it seems like *a* way for this to work. You can't use correlation to prove causation, but *dis*correlation seems pretty much to be likely to *dis*prove causation.

Yes, you are idiots. Liars, too, but that's well known. I really don't care much about your "intelligence tests". Just using them as an argument proves my point.

Keep lying. You're good at it. I've told you *many* times, that was seven years ago and I did FPGA design (and the boards they went on, as it turned out). For being so good on your "tests", you are really s***ty at simple arithmetic.

"Luck" has nothing to do with life. "Luck" is the bogey man of losers. You certainly fit the bill, Bill.

Oh, good grief. Do the arithmetic, if you can. You're just full of lies. You *really* can't help it.

Good grief. Do the arithmetic and stop spreading the lies of liars. The proof of your lies is obvious, yet you insist on telling the same old lies. Can't expect anything more from a compulsive liar, though.

The evidence, from your mouth, is clearly on my side. You *are* unemployable. How's that oscillator coming again?

...and it's nowhere. It's designed, right, yet it doesn't work. Need more evidence of your un employability? Blobbs might think that's impressive.

Oh, you're saying that even Blobbs doesn't believe you. Could be. You certainly believe everything he says. ...so much so that you repeat his obvious lies. Liars do that.

I'm sure you think there was something worthwhile in there.

Ah, IKWYABWAI. Your best argument to date.

For all of your braggadocio, You really are a stupid s*it.

You keep telling lies, yet defend those obvious lies. You must be lying to yourself, as well.

Blame always lies somewhere else. Typical of losers.

Yes, stupid is as stupid does.... but you can't answer can you? You are stuck on this one, so you avoid it by bringing up the call of the stupid. I'm surprised you didn't yell, "LIAR".

No, make that a 10 year old.

e:

sher for a branch of of military-industrial boon-doggleing - that branch of US defense spending usually described as corporate welfare. He certainly d oesn't seem to know much about electronics, and posts very little about it, if any.

It's known that you claim both, and haven't got a clue what either claim im plies.

em

Since you've failed to grasp that I wasn't using them as an "argument" you' ve just proved mine.

So what are you doing now? If you are as proud of it as you seem to be, you might tell us.

etic.

It's pointless doing simple arithmetic on qualitative assertions. We known that you used to work for IBM (for quite a while) and for an unspecified de fence contractor after that, and you are now telling us that you are workin g for some different - but obviously undiscriminating - employer now. What do you think you are doing for them?

IBM for well over three decades before I *retired* from that job.

bbed the chance to get shot of you, you had the luck to get a job with a mi litary contractor, who discovered that you were dumb enough to be able to s urvive doing defence contract paperwork without becoming any more obviously disturbed than you were before you started. Lucky you.

Everybody who is lucky tells the rest of us that "luck had nothing to do wi th it". I may be unemployed, but nobody who knows me would classify me as a loser. I did take the precaution of marrying a "winner" early on and follo wing up her winning streak did compromise my career to some extent - as my farther pointed out at the time, before having the ill grace to die before my wife started doing really well and we could have pointed out that he had been being an unreconstructed sexist (which was common amongst people born in 1915).

u are currently doing, rather than what you might have been doing before yo u would normally have been retired.

You really do think that everybody knows stuff that you haven't bothered to tell us.

Spread the information which might support your "arithemetic".

As you illustrate rather better than you imagine. Self-deceit isn't actuall y lying, but given your rather elastic definition of "lying" you probably q ualify for your own opprobrium.

bout everybody else who hasn't been as lucky.

wouldn't make yourself laughable by making such an absurd claim.

I'm unemployed, and have been for some ten years now - since I was 60. Empl oyers don't like hiring elderly people. "Unemployable" is a different conce pt - since I'm current deployed as the treasurer of the NSW branch of the I EEE (for which I don't get paid) it isn't actually applicable.

Not at all at the moment.

ned, and I've bought the bits from which I plan to assemble a - hopefully - working device, when I can get access to some bench space.

It works fine in simulation, and should eventually work in real life.

How does my lack of progress on a hobby project reflect on my employability ? Employees have space in which to work. Hobby projects get done when circums tances permit.

Why would anybody think that a half-done hobby project was "impressive"?

miss it as that he doesn't understand the concept.

minority. Perhaps the least cognitively competent of our crew of half-wits , though Jamie does come close. He does think about real electronics from t ime to time, which does give him an edge over you.

Interesting logical leap there.

you > repeat his obvious lies. Liars do that.

I'm not all that taken by Fred's current out of misogyny. I don't believe e verything that anybody says, but Fred's batting average is rather higher th an yours.

t of that argument.

mortgage market. He made loans on conditions that looked good enough to him .

And I'm sure that you couldn't have found it if there was.

Probably not - your judgement is notoriously poor.

ng

titutes an "idiot" - someone who disagrees with him - or a "liar" - ditto.

It's funny that you - of all people - would say that.

hich isn't quite the same thing, if decidedly simple-minded behavior on krw 's part.

The self-deceit is all yours.

y than krw.

happens in places like the Netherlands, where the expectation was that eve rybody wanted to retire at 55, and keeping working above that age took a re al effort.

One gets "blamed" for hitting retirement age?

Winners are supposed to kill themselves from shame when they aren't part of the lucky few who can keep on working after 65? Krw would probably be a so cial Darwinist, if he could work out what the phrase meant.

That's sort of saying that the only thing people ever die from is heart failure. It's true, but it's not the entire story.

True!

Or she, from what I've seen.

Indeed.

When's the last time you owned up to being wrong here?

John Fields

On Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:02:10 -0400, snipped-for-privacy@attt.bizz wrote: . . .

--- If you really _did_ work for IBM for all that time, then no doubt what you meant when you wrote: "I actually can get an oscillator designed and working" was that you were relegated to some kind of a liaison position where you picked up and delivered inter-office memos to the engineering staff.

Goodness knows your design proficiency around here isn't the stuff legends are made of unless, of course, non-performance is the criterion for the building of the legend.

We know you're another liar but, again, nothing new.

More lies. Zzzzz.

Even more...

e phrase >meant. "

Krw seems to think that he/she/it is the only truth-teller who posts on sci .electronics.design. If we needed any confirmation of the obvious fact that the he/she/it can't realiably identify true statements - no-one can - and that he/she/it confuses potentially honest misapprehensions with "lies", th is is all we needed.

I said nothing of the kind but that doesn't stop you from lying. Only death will do that.

But he failed to post a circuit ...

But krw couldn't find any evidence to post to show that John Fields had got it wrong. Not that I'd trust krw to deliver inter-office memo's - he'd pro bably be selective about what he delivered to whom. Delivering interesting memos to the wrong recipient would require a kind of creative insight that he's never shown here, but losing memo sent to people he didn't like would be within the skill set he does exhibit.

Of course krw hasn't bothered to dig out any of his posts here that have de monstrated any kind of design proficiency. He doesn't understand arguing fr om evidence, so he wouldn't see the point, but he'd be hard pressed to find one, even if he did.

You really can't read, can you Slowman?

Good Lord, you're stupid, Slowman. Once more you repeat lies, I suppose just to prove me right. Really odd, though. Nah, stupid explains it all.

Keep it up. It's really funny.

As anybody less dumb than krw would would realise, I can not only read - wh ich even krw can manage - but also see the implications of stuff that peopl e write, which is a little beyond krw's restricted skills.

got it wrong. Not that I'd trust krw to deliver inter-office memo's - he'd probably be selective about what he delivered to whom. Delivering interesti ng memos to the wrong recipient would require a kind of creative insight th at he's never shown here, but losing memo sent to people he didn't like wou ld be within the skill set he does exhibit.

It's the only explanation that krw can come up with. The fact that it's vis ibly inadequate - at least to most people - doesn't trouble krw - he's not into second order implications

demonstrated any kind of design proficiency. He doesn't understand arguing from evidence, so he wouldn't see the point, but he'd be hard pressed to f ind one, even if he did.

Thank you. I doubt if you appreciation is sincere, since you don't really g et jokes, particularly those at your own expense, but doing the right thing - even for the wrong reason - is to be encouraged.