On 09/10/2014 02:02, rickman wrote:


Because there is *nothing* you can do to "eliminate" his behavior. By
responding you are just encouraging him. Your type of responses are
exactly why he posts in the first place.

But whatever. At this point we all covered in mod from wrestling with
this pig.


Moreover, by not ignoring him, you have indicated to him that you are
'game' to be 'played'. He will be back, again and again. He has posted
several nonsense antenna idea on uk.r.a in the past, expect to see then
on here. No doubt he is cooking up others right now. Plus, he will
'recycle' the ones he uses from time to time, in the hope of stimulating
another pointless thread. I lost track of how many times how many times
his Big K nonsense was recycled, before he claim to have realised that
his K was a constant in the accepted maths. (It didn't 'tie up' with his
nonsense, needless to say, but that simply led to more nonsense.)

He frequents several groups and does the same thing in them.

The best thing is just to totally ignore him.

He will still post, still rant and rave, but you won't waste your time.

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Moreover, by not ignoring him, you have indicated to him that you are
'game' to be 'played'. He will be back, again and again. He has posted
several nonsense antenna idea on uk.r.a in the past, expect to see then
on here. No doubt he is cooking up others right now. Plus, he will
'recycle' the ones he uses from time to time, in the hope of stimulating
another pointless thread. I lost track of how many times how many times
his Big K nonsense was recycled, before he claim to have realised that his
K was a constant in the accepted maths. (It didn't 'tie up' with his
nonsense, needless to say, but that simply led to more nonsense.)
He frequents several groups and does the same thing in them.
The best thing is just to totally ignore him.
He will still post, still rant and rave, but you won't waste your time.
He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

Well, Brian, you have complained that a moderated NG is needed to
deal with the cesspit of ura, but do you not think that perhaps your
habit of laying into people with gratuitous offensive personal remarks
is somehow responsible?

Wht not join the discussion with technical ideas, if you understand the
discussion, rather than just attacking the person?

On the other hand, if you are angry because you do not understand
the issues being discussed, I commend to you the old adage, "The fool
keepeth his mouth shut"

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

On 09/10/2014 02:02, rickman wrote:


Because there is *nothing* you can do to "eliminate" his behavior. By
responding you are just encouraging him. Your type of responses are
exactly why he posts in the first place.

But whatever. At this point we all covered in mod from wrestling with
this pig.


Moreover, by not ignoring him, you have indicated to him that you are
'game' to be 'played'. He will be back, again and again. He has posted
several nonsense antenna idea on uk.r.a in the past, expect to see then
on here. No doubt he is cooking up others right now. Plus, he will
'recycle' the ones he uses from time to time, in the hope of stimulating
another pointless thread. I lost track of how many times how many times
his Big K nonsense was recycled, before he claim to have realised that
his K was a constant in the accepted maths. (It didn't 'tie up' with his
nonsense, needless to say, but that simply led to more nonsense.)

I don't understand why you label this thread as pointless as it has
stirred technical discussion that has evolved into an interesting thread
that I, for one, have learnt from and enjoyed reading. It would seem to
have been something that everybody had an opinion of but nobody dared to
mention. Seems that certain beliefs from various people were wrong, so
what? We all gain.

He frequents several groups and does the same thing in them.

The best thing is just to totally ignore him.

He will still post, still rant and rave, but you won't waste your time.

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

It seems to me that he is between a rock and a hard place. You say that
your desire is for more technical postings on usenet but when one is
presented, you immediately try to shoot the messenger rather than
offering any useful input yourself!

On 10/9/2014 4:05 PM, gareth wrote:

I commend to you the old adage, "The fool
keepeth his mouth shut"

But it was you that started this thread... oh, I thought you were
talking about yourself.

--

Rick

On 10/9/2014 5:03 PM, Steve wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

It seems to me that he is between a rock and a hard place. You say that
your desire is for more technical postings on usenet but when one is
presented, you immediately try to shoot the messenger rather than
offering any useful input yourself!

I think the problem is that instead of participating in a rational
discussion, regardless of who started it, the one in question just spews
nonsense.

Brian is right when he says some here have nothing better to do.

--

Rick

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 18:36:12 -0400, rickman wrote:

On 10/9/2014 5:03 PM, Steve wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

It seems to me that he is between a rock and a hard place. You say that
your desire is for more technical postings on usenet but when one is
presented, you immediately try to shoot the messenger rather than
offering any useful input yourself!

I think the problem is that instead of participating in a rational
discussion, regardless of who started it, the one in question just spews
nonsense.

I think you have said that to Gareth, but have continued to debate the
subject with others and it does not seem that you were doing this under
duress. It would seem that you have enjoyed participating in the
discussion. I have enjoyed your considerable input along with that from
the other contributors. Should Gareth be criticised for starting
interesting threads in a quiet newsgroup? I think not.

Brian is right when he says some here have nothing better to do.

That is saying that you and the other contributors had nothing better to
do ;-)

rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:03 PM, Steve wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

It seems to me that he is between a rock and a hard place. You say that
your desire is for more technical postings on usenet but when one is
presented, you immediately try to shoot the messenger rather than
offering any useful input yourself!

I think the problem is that instead of participating in a rational
discussion, regardless of who started it, the one in question just spews nonsense.

Brian is right when he says some here have nothing better to do.


Steve supports Evans no matter what, he is another troll.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 02:34:06 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 5:03 PM, Steve wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:38:36 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

He has nothing better to do, the rest of us have.

It seems to me that he is between a rock and a hard place. You say
that your desire is for more technical postings on usenet but when one
is presented, you immediately try to shoot the messenger rather than
offering any useful input yourself!

I think the problem is that instead of participating in a rational
discussion, regardless of who started it, the one in question just
spews nonsense.

Brian is right when he says some here have nothing better to do.


Steve supports Evans no matter what, he is another troll.

In fact I would support anybody who asked a technical question and then
got roasted, even you.

I am happy to let the readership decide who is the troll here, Brian!

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

Steve supports Evans no matter what, he is another troll.

Once again, it is you who creates the cesspits about which you complain.

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
I lost track of how many times how many times his Big K nonsense was
recycled, before he claim to have realised that his K was a constant in
the accepted maths.

Sophistry, for you well know that my point that such a constant must exist
was ABSENT from the many texts to which I had access, a constant
that I had dubbed Big K.

It was not until 2006 / 2007 when I was subcontracting at a DSP chip
manufacturer that I found the vindication for my proposal, a proposal which
had
come about after extensive revision of all the Fourier, Laplace and analogue
filter design that I was taught at Uni.

You claimed on several occasions to have put me right on the matter, but
when I sought the URL or message ID from you, you shut up like a clam.