[John Larkin]

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 09:18:28 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:51:30 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 06:31:40 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:55:19 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 14:44:58 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:22:31 -0800, John Larkin
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:07:36 -0600, John Fields
wrote:

---
The truth _is_ you have less of an interest in discussing electronics
in a give-and-take kind of way than you do in exalting yourself, so I
prefer to generally opt out of any threads you infect.

---
JF

I didn't "infect" this thread, I started it.

---
Then it was diseased from the beginning.
---

So why have you posted so much cluckey blather here?

---
You call it "cluckey blather" in an attempt to belittle it, I call it
what it is: criticism.

Criticism would have some content.

---
It does, and the content accurately enumerates your foibles, which is
anathema to you since you've managed to convince yourself and are
trying to convince everyone else that you're perfect in every way.
---

You know, something having to do with the circuit.

---
There are no rules here, as you've proved by your gross abuse of the
newsgroup with your legion off-topic posts, and if I choose to not
comment on your circuit, that's my right.
---

All you've done is whine.

---
Not so.

What I've done is simply point out technical errors which you've made,
over the years, and then been forced to respond to the calumny you
invariably invoke in order to try to make your stance seem unsullied.
---

You refuse to discuss this circuit, then you attack me personally for
not doing give-and-take discussion of this circuit!

---
It's not an attack, it's an observation, and it's not about this
circuit in particular, it's about your fanatical need to be in
control.

Electronic design is all about control. Of signals.

But you probably meant some sort of personal control. How does posting
a circuit, and opening it for discussion, suggest control? I thought
discussing circuits is what s.e.d. is for.

---
Then why do you defy the group's charter by posting off-topic,
irrelevant nonsense?
---

You're just a crabby old git who won't discuss electronics.

---
With you, since all you're interested in is fostering your agenda, the
inflation of your ego.

My agenda is, and always has been, to design electronics. My ego has
been tuned to further that end. Electronics design requires a
combination of arrogance (to believe you can do things other people
can't) and humility (to avoid the thousands of possible mistakes) and
compulsiveness (to get it all done, all right.) And, more than
anything else, brutal honesty. Not many people an manage all that, and
lots of other people don't like the people who can.

There's not many things more fun than doing this with other people who
know how. Especially since the whiteboard was invented.

John

---
On the above, I'm not at odds with you except for the "brutal honesty"
part which, when you're found to be in error, all of a sudden doesn't
apply to you.

---
JF

I make mistakes all the time, and a lot of my ideas get paved over by
somebody else's ideas. I work with some *very* smart people who, in
their areas, know a lot more than I do. That's part of the fun of
playing with ideas.

But if you want to argue over definitions, like whether something
that's unboundedly large can be referred to as "infinite", that's just
words, definitions, and doesn't matter. It certainly doesn't affect
the electronics. A latching relay does what it does.

John