Cockroft-Walton question.

Yeah, unlike me, who, whin I admit the error of those I don't like,, wuh-oh! freudian los sof track of what the fck point I was going to make. Oh! Yeah. Take My REality! PLease! And then three was some gag in threr about error and those I don't like.

Oh, yeah, now I remember. I'm happy to admit the errors of those I don't like, but they so seldom admit to their own! ;-P I'm more than happy to point out the error of your ways. It's just that there's approx. 6E9 ways to be wrong, and only one o fme. )-; ...... Yeah, I'm gonna go ahead and his tend. heh! Hit Send!

'Kay! Bye!

Heck, Win, I can't even diagram the sentence! %-}

Cheers! Rich

Of course, though you've put it very well! Why else would he forward to dev.null. He thinks he's the master of the Usenet. Perhaps he does know all the tricks, but using them makes him no less of a twat.

Heavens No, Win! John is sticking up for the intrinsic value of silliness itself, for the sake of silliness! This is something that I've come to realize about both John Larkin and John Fields - they both appreciate the value of silliness for its own sake. As do, usually, most of the folks that hang out around here. It's just that not all of us are as good as each other at making up silliness _on purpose_, but that takes us off our roast of Guy having said something, possibly posted in haste, ([heh - post-haste! get it?] - Oh, crap, who's the new guy?) that it gets pointed out as silly because it wsa some kind of assertion that wsa, upon reflection, in the oipinion of another person, who, while highly esteemed, regarded, awed, revered, and al lthat crap, still probably takes his pants off the same way the rest of us do - open them and let them drop, then step out - happened to noticed that someone had accidentally said something that came off as silly. Maybe it was some kind f silly assertion about the way magnetic fields work or osmething. It''s been so long, An dmy type till you hype homunculus is doing my fingers at the monmet! So, I say, Lont Live Sill1Y!

Oh, Yeah, BTW, I'm so drunk and hign on herb that I can hardly see. But I'm have ing way much fun, and still - _STILL_ blieieve that "silliness" is to be aspired for, as long as one know s that that is the goal, and embraces it when it arises spontaneoudly.

OK, I'm not proofreading this one eaither, maybe some day domegocy'll do a study of how f***ed up Rich types when he's f***ed up!

Cheers! Rich

The technology and thus the market moves on. There isn't a ton of money in toobz (forgetting audiophools for the moment) these days.

The paragraph in question is one where you spell out your reasoning as to why *something that I never wrote* was wrong. You put the words in my mouth and then refuted them. You set up a straw man and knocked it down. I have asked you to provide a quote showing that I ever made the claim that you falsely attributed to me, and you have failed to do so.

Let me check the archives...

Ah. I figured that I wouldn't have to go back far. John used a statement of mine that was and still is 100% true and said that it separates "BSers from engineers" Then he calls me a "tedious fathead." Now you make your familiar demand that I refrain from personal attacks while saying nothing about personal attacks directed at me.

According to Google (which is not always correct), your first post to sci.electronics.design was in 1996 and John Larkin first posted in

If you want to go back before the 1995 reorganization, I think your first post to Usenet was in 1994 to sci.electronics (but I may have missed a post buried in earlier posts that mention AoE.) My first post to Usenet was in 1995, also to sci.electronics. I can't find Larkin posting in that time period.

DOOOD!! Fun?

Fugaw, mayun! I've been protecting sensitive components from voltage transience for years! ;-D

(for those who know their elbow from a hole in the ground, voltage "transience" is almost an adverb - like a condition, or state of being: if it's in transience, it's like in flux, or a state of change. Voltage "transients" are those spikes that blow stuff up. Or, well, make chips fail.)

Thanks! Rich

On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 21:30:23 +0000, Guy Macon wrote: ...

Yes, Guy. Tedious fathead.

I don't even remember what the original bone of contention was. but you're using copious words, and a vocabulary that would put the New York Times Crossword to shame, to beat a dead straw horse.

OK, so ya loat a round. What we re we fighting about anywyay?

Sigh, Rich

I didn't say there was _no_ money. Comparitively?

Low voltage is pretty much required by anything more complex than a cell phone. Physics drives the cell phone too. Look for everythign to go sub-threshold rather soon (not that I'm telling you anything new).

In article , keith wrote: (with some snippage by me)

A major hobby of mine has been working on and building and designing audio circuits, about 97% solid state. I surely consider limiting supply voltage to 3.3V to almost ruin this hobby of mine and of the friends of mine that I do such work with!

I surely believe that plenty of audio work in 2005 requires supply voltages higher than 3.3 or even 5 volts! Dare we place a bet as to existence of mixing boards, compressors, limiters or equalizers of models first introduced in or after 2006, as to any requiring supply voltages more than 3.3 or 5 volts?

Ever see what sort of voltage an electric guitar pickup puts out when its output is on the high side due to vigorous playing? Ever notice that electric guitars are not always subject to a level of distortion more than "barely detectable"? How about output voltage from a microphone for a bass drum? This is usually clipped, but not to an extent that is not further distorted by audio circuitry working from only a +3.3V supply!

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

We're talking HAND-HELD stuff here. I'm sure garden-variety ±15V OpAmps will exist for years to come... sheeesh, some of my designs from the '60's are still being manufactured.

...Jim Thompson

Well, some of us are easily amused.

John

Soon it'll all be digital, with LVDS logic levels.

John

It was about using stupid header tricks to hijack this ng, to force-moderate posts to s.e.d, to divert replies to a null group to "have the last word", and to blame the victims for stupidity if they allowed themselves to be fooled. And about then ranting about others being off-topic. And about being pompous and tedious.

John

Hey, anybody in the southern Alabama area? Hmmm, probably not playing on newsgroups about now.

Agreed. This *is* a waste of time.

No. I will lose the round when someone provides a quote showing me expressing the opinion that is being put in my mouth and called silly. What I actually wrote is not silly and is not wrong.

I killfile those who only wish to fight. If they are still going on about it without me seeing or responding to their posts, that's not my fault.

"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." -Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_

Lol. The only problem with hiking is the weight of the extension cord.....

Cheers Terry