Paul Burridge wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:23:36 -0700, gwhite wrote:
That is clever -- you want me to "declare" something is true that
I've made no reference to. You are quite the inventor. Face it:
you had an incorrect notion about linearity. All the rest of your
words are twisting, squirming, and turning to try to save face after
you acted condescending (and still do) about a very simple matter.
That's all.
I have to say I've been wrestling with this attitude problem of kev's
as well. Earlier this evening I postulated to myself that the reason
for all these contradictory posts
What contradictory posts?
As far as attitude goes, I think we can all get rather exasperated when
someone else uses very strong rhetoric against ones own competence, when
it is trivially obvious that such claims are completely without any
merit whatsoever.
and arguments over semantics might
possibly be due to Kev's impared usage of English.
See below.
If the guy's
dyslexic or has some other comprehension problem, he might very well
be an electronics genius but we'd find it hard to tell because this
veil between he and us muddies the water both ways.
This makes little sense. Most of my posts are very clear, although not
necessarily pristine in all aspects of their structure. Any lack of
comprehension of them, is often a problem with the reader.
You view as
expressed above is a very much more cynical one, but I'm forming the
view that one or t'other must explain it. But Kev has admitted to
English not being his strong suit elsewhere on the group
My fundamental problem with English is that I have a very poor memory,
in conjunction with the fact that I am a two fingered typist. This
results in an inability to spell or type accurately. I usually function
by understanding and deriving results from basic concepts, rather than
by remembering millions of facts. Unfortunately I don't always check the
spell checked version that well. For instance, "simplely" might come out
as "simple" instead of "simply", making the statement "Its that simply",
grammatically wrong.
and if that's
the case and he really *does* know what he's talking about then
Of course I do.
I feel
sorry for him. It must be pretty ****ty and exceedingly frustrating
for anyone in that position. I know; I've met a few and it's ruined
their lives.
My life is quite fine thank you. I have wrote volumes of decent
technical reports, with no complaints.
I usually write quite accurately, expressing exactly what I want to say
in order to cover my arse. I do this explicitly, deliberately and
seriously as a general rule, with the method of "Yes Minister" TV series
speak. Often, it is a joy to watch other people fail to understand what
was actually said. For example, suppose the Minister had read a paper
indicating that a proposal of his would generate 500 redundancies. In
the House of Commons, he would say "No person informed me that there
would be any redundancies from my proposal". If you actually go back and
check my posts, you might be well surprised how subtle some of the
points are. Of course, at times I have made what might have been
inaccurate statements, but this is often simply because I have
temporally forgot something that I know well, or I have made an
assumption, that the obvious exceptions, are being deliberately ignored
for the purposes of the discussion. The issue here, is that the novice,
interprets this as a lack of understanding on my part. It just gets too
cumbersome addressing all the details, when only the general picture is
required.
Kevin Aylward
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.