Fun with analogue multipliers

I'd nominate you for

The web-site still exists, but you really don't seem to understand what qualifies candidates for a nomination there.

While you may not be completely insane you do have some characteristics similar to this guy.

You probably aren't understanding as much of what is going on a you like to think. Your misapprehensions about the job I didn't get at the Lucas Heights nuclear reactor are a pretty good example of that.

I agree that I know absolutely nothing about the job you didn't get. But it does not surprise me that you didn't get it.

One other thing to be aware of, if you aren't already, is that anyone who applies for pretty much any job will have their online personality researched. Obviously I do not know whether or not this was a factor in the job you applied for but it's something to be aware of.

Oh the irony!

It didn't surprise me either. Your reason for not being surprised is probably going to be one of you i,nexhaustible stock of misapprehensions.

Sci.electronics.design isn't a well-known arena. In twenty years I've met just one other electronic engineer who knew about it (which is to say had read it but not posted here). I do list most of my published papers in my CV - there are thirteen that I do list - and they might come up too (though they never have). The couple of papers I don't list had had editorial inputs from the marketing department.

And Liz is compounding the irony, though she may not be aware of this.

It is if your name is Google, and other search engines. You should try using it. There are also Usenet text search engines.

Linguistic analysis may be able to go some way towards correlating my own Usenet posts over the last 30 years.

The absurd flame wars drive people away.

I have. Have you? It picks up some of my stuff, but a lot of other people's as well.

Scholar.google does better with the search string "a w sloman" but it only searches the peer-reviewed literature.

There a lot of other people around who call themselves "Bill Sloman".

Have you any idea what linguistic analysis might be? My late wife was a expert in the area. You are merely a pretentious clown.

You see personal insult in every critical comment, and consequently perceive a lot of rational discussion as "absurd flame wars". The absurdity is in your perception of what you think is going on.

I must say that Jim Thompson's claim to have reported me to the FBI for anti-American sentiment was pretty absurd, but it didn't rate as a flame war. The fact that I'd been security cleared back in 1970 to a level that had got me into US Army ECOM at Fort Monmouth NJ did make the absurdity obvious.

You mean "You are merely a pretentious clown." is not a personal insult?

On the same level as " I agree that I know absolutely nothing about the job you didn't get. But it does not surprise me that you didn't get it."

The difference is that you really are a pretentious clown, and we know that from the twaddle you post here, so it is primarily critical comment and the insult is merely incidental.

Your understanding of "insult" includes any comment that suggests that matter being commented on includes anything which is less than perfectly admirable.

Since you'd be the one judging what constitutes an insult, you'd be bound to win your bet. You do like those kinds of odds.