[Andre Jute]

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, who claims to be an engineer, wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Soundhaspriority wrote:
I was at a show where a designer informed me that he used tube power
rectification -- 5R4 -- because it resulted in lower power supply impedance.
I countered by saying, how could this be, tube rectifiers have a 10% voltage
drop. He replied that this was true, but nevertheless, stood by his
statement.

It seems to me this could be true if a tube rectifier had negative dynamic
resistance, so that as the current increased, the voltage drop across the
tube decreased.

Any elucidatory comments?

It is not as straightforward a question as it seems.

Yes it is.

A typical junk science claim from Jootikins.

Really? Then why did you snip away my text where I explain precisely
what the relationship is.

The rectifier 'slope impedance' can can be determined from it's characterisitcs.
It *will* be higher than any silicon rectifier by loads and loads. And the supply
voltage with a tube rectifier will droop greater on load too.

Do you claim that it is a linear relationship? Yes or no, Poopie. Don't
give us your bull**** waffle, give us a specific answer as you claim
(below) is everyone's scientific duty.

However, it is not
difficult to follow his mental process. It merely requires some
flexibility

Read gullibility and willingness to discard science.

Nope. Sophistication almost always includes wily scepticism. I leave
gullibility to diplomaed quarterwits like you and their rote learning.

(in addition to the extremely specialized knowledge that is
a given in this discussion) to hold his view rather than yours; most
practising tube designers, if they are more than mere mechanics, will
go along with him, though not all will admit it in public. All of that
said, explaining his viewpoint is not something I would wish to
undertake on a trade show floor.

How to determince the use of JUNK SCIENCE !
================================================== ===

The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful
in identifying pseudoscience.

Who are these cited authors that you don't tell us the names of,
Poopie? I've spoken to you before about your appeals to already
discredited authority. You're really a very slow learner.

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Is that the headline? If so, it should be distinguished somehow from
the rest, or it looks like you're just repeating yourself, like a bad
comedy act in the clubs where you work:

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack
specific measurements as a basis [18].

Nope. I made no vague claims. My claims are specific and give measured
results. You cut away the evidence so that your lie will stand up. We
are not fooled.

Failure to make use of operational definitions [19]

I made use of the operational definition of Ohm's Law several times, of
the operational definition of damping, and so on. You cut away the
evidence. But this is more than a lie, it is your admission that you do
not recognize Ohm, or the definition of damping, or the general
principles of electronics which are applied in my post. Where did you
say you got your diploma from again, Poopie? And how much was it,
besides the six off-brand cola caps you also had to send in?

Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an
explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20]

Prove that I made a single unnecessary assumption. Again, you cut away
the evidence in your dumb attempt to prove your foolish lie. Now I'm
calling you on it. Prove it or apologize, Poopie. (Well, I'm going to
kick slack, fat arse around the houses anyway, so don't bother trying
to apologize. It's too late.)

Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or
highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the
superficial trappings of science.[21]

Nope, just plain, straighforward English that anyone who graduated high
school can understand. You cut away the evidence, Poopie, to make your
dumb lie stand up. Now you must prove that a single sentence of mine in
that post is "obscurantist". That's more than just "obscure" (meaning
that a retard like you won't understand it); you must prove for
"obscurantist" to stand up that there is also the intention to baffle.
Bend over, Poopie, your ignorance of a noble language has again stuffed
you painfully!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Another appeal to dubious authority!

Also.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

Yet more appeals to dubious authority!

Hey, Poopie, I've been wondering as I read the years and years of
mindlessly grinding, totally unenlightening soundbites from you, what
it is that you think with. Now I know. You think with ****. That's why
you are called Poopie.

Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific method
entirely.

I know more about the scientific method than you ever will, and in
particular about placebo tests, what you pretentiously call ABX tests.
But, again, you cut away the evidence in an effort to make your lie
stand up. Prove that a single sentence or other statement of mine from
that post is "anti-scientific". Again, you have to prove volition, and
that doesn't just mean that I am openly contemptuous of you and your
little certificate, and of the other diplomaed quarterwits who come on
RAT to shout down the tubies; it means you have to prove contempt for a
principle of science or for an engineer of achievement. Of course you
can't -- so you cut away the evidence of what I actually said.

Graham

You're not only a public liar and a fool, Poopie, you're a public
convenience of a liar and a fool.

Why don't you tell us why you're called Poopie. At least that will be
worth a laugh.

Andre Jute
No mercy for the enemies of science

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, who claims to be an engineer, wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Soundhaspriority wrote:
I was at a show where a designer informed me that he used tube power
rectification -- 5R4 -- because it resulted in lower power supply impedance.
I countered by saying, how could this be, tube rectifiers have a 10% voltage
drop. He replied that this was true, but nevertheless, stood by his
statement.

It seems to me this could be true if a tube rectifier had negative dynamic
resistance, so that as the current increased, the voltage drop across the
tube decreased.

Any elucidatory comments?

It is not as straightforward a question as it seems.

Yes it is.

A typical junk science claim from Jootikins.

Really? Then why did you snip away my text where I explain precisely
what the relationship is.

Sorry !

Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ? I might have missed it I guess.


The rectifier 'slope impedance' can can be determined from it's characterisitcs.
It *will* be higher than any silicon rectifier by loads and loads. And the supply
voltage with a tube rectifier will droop greater on load too.

Do you claim that it is a linear relationship? Yes or no, Poopie.

Is the slope impedance linear ? I very much doubt it. Anything 'toobie' is about as
(non) linear as a bent South African beach boy.


Don't give us your bull**** waffle, give us a specific answer as you claim
(below) is everyone's scientific duty.

See above.


However, it is not difficult to follow his mental process. It merely
requires some flexibility

Read gullibility and willingness to discard science.

Nope. Sophistication almost always includes wily scepticism. I leave
gullibility to diplomaed quarterwits like you and their rote learning.

And this has what exactly to do with anything ? Other than thinking you can impress ppl
with your supposed 'wordiness' ?


(in addition to the extremely specialized knowledge that is
a given in this discussion) to hold his view rather than yours; most
practising tube designers, if they are more than mere mechanics, will
go along with him, though not all will admit it in public. All of that
said, explaining his viewpoint is not something I would wish to
undertake on a trade show floor.

How to determince the use of JUNK SCIENCE !
================================================== ===

The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful
in identifying pseudoscience.

Who are these cited authors that you don't tell us the names of,

You removed the link. Please feel free to go back and study.


Poopie? I've spoken to you before about your appeals to already
discredited authority. You're really a very slow learner.

Bwahahahahaha !


Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Is that the headline? If so, it should be distinguished somehow from
the rest, or it looks like you're just repeating yourself, like a bad
comedy act in the clubs where you work:

Obfuscation noted.


Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack
specific measurements as a basis [18].

Nope. I made no vague claims. My claims are specific and give measured
results. You cut away the evidence so that your lie will stand up. We
are not fooled.

Unfortunately for you, your claims vary from day / month to the next one. You are an
arch-troll and obfusantist. No more, no less.


Failure to make use of operational definitions [19]

I made use of the operational definition of Ohm's Law several times,

Is that the only one you know ?


of
the operational definition of damping, and so on. You cut away the
evidence. But this is more than a lie, it is your admission that you do
not recognize Ohm, or the definition of damping, or the general
principles of electronics which are applied in my post. Where did you
say you got your diploma from again, Poopie? And how much was it,
besides the six off-brand cola caps you also had to send in?

So tell me about Norton and Thevenin 'equivalent circuits' since you're such a
smarty-pants !

University of London btw.


Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an
explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20]

Prove that I made a single unnecessary assumption. Again, you cut away
the evidence in your dumb attempt to prove your foolish lie. Now I'm
calling you on it. Prove it or apologize, Poopie. (Well, I'm going to
kick slack, fat arse around the houses anyway, so don't bother trying
to apologize. It's too late.)

Hah ! You're struggling now ! Occam's razor would give you one hell of a fine shave for
sure !


Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or
highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the
superficial trappings of science.[21]

Nope, just plain, straighforward English that anyone who graduated high
school can understand

You ?

Straighforward English ?

You jest.


You cut away the evidence

There was no 'evidence'.


, Poopie, to make your
dumb lie stand up. Now you must prove that a single sentence of mine in
that post is "obscurantist"

Try getttin someone to read your drivel for you !


. That's more than just "obscure" (meaning
that a retard like you won't understand it); you must prove for
"obscurantist" to stand up that there is also the intention to baffle.
Bend over, Poopie

Your homosexual leanings finally make themselves fully public !

Are you afraid of females btw ? This is seemingly a common problem that queer boys
have. I put it down to inadequate mental development.


your ignorance of a noble language has again stuffed
you painfully!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Another appeal to dubious authority!

What's dubious about it ?


Also.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

Yet more appeals to dubious authority!

Nothing dubious there AT ALL !


Hey, Poopie, I've been wondering as I read the years and years of
mindlessly grinding, totally unenlightening soundbites from you, what
it is that you think with. Now I know. You think with ****. That's why
you are called Poopie.

My name is Eeyore you ignorant twit !


Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific method
entirely.

I know more about the scientific method than you ever will

Cough Splutter - aarrgggghhhhhhhhh !

You *have* to having a right old joke THERE !


and in
particular about placebo tests, what you pretentiously call ABX tests.
But, again, you cut away the evidence in an effort to make your lie
stand up. Prove that a single sentence or other statement of mine from
that post is "anti-scientific". Again, you have to prove volition, and
that doesn't just mean that I am openly contemptuous of you and your
little certificate, and of the other diplomaed quarterwits who come on
RAT to shout down the tubies; it means you have to prove contempt for a
principle of science or for an engineer of achievement. Of course you
can't -- so you cut away the evidence of what I actually said.

YAWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Graham

You're not only a public liar and a fool, Poopie, you're a public
convenience of a liar and a fool.

Your obsession with 'cottaging' is noted. When did you last have a hot cock up your bum
? Not recently enough it would seem from your projected frustration.


Why don't you tell us why you're called Poopie. At least that will be
worth a laugh.

Ask yourself. You originated it.


Andre Jute
No mercy for the enemies of science

You are the ultimate enemy of science Mr Darth Jooticutie.

Graham

[Peter Wieck]

Andrew Jute mcCoy whined in desparation:

Why didn't you read between the lines, pretty-please???????

Because, put simply, the only "lines" you know are coke lines on a
glass table.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, who claims to be an engineer, wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Soundhaspriority wrote:
I was at a show where a designer informed me that he used tube power
rectification -- 5R4 -- because it resulted in lower power supply impedance.
I countered by saying, how could this be, tube rectifiers have a 10% voltage
drop. He replied that this was true, but nevertheless, stood by his
statement.

It seems to me this could be true if a tube rectifier had negative dynamic
resistance, so that as the current increased, the voltage drop across the
tube decreased.

Any elucidatory comments?

It is not as straightforward a question as it seems.

Yes it is.

A typical junk science claim from Jootikins.

Really? Then why did you snip away my text where I explain precisely
what the relationship is.

Sorry !

Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ? I might have missed it I guess.

That's another lie, this one in an attempt to distract attention from
the fact that I called you on your first lie and you don't have an
answer.

I repeat, Poopie: If my statement is "junk science" as you claim, why
did you snip away the evidence that I explained the relationship of
current draw and voltage drop in a tube rectifier in detail and more
correctly than you did?

Is how you do "science", Poopie? First you lie, then you snip the
evidence, then try to smear anyone who calls you to account?

You're scum, Poopie.

The rectifier 'slope impedance' can can be determined from it's characterisitcs.
It *will* be higher than any silicon rectifier by loads and loads. And the supply
voltage with a tube rectifier will droop greater on load too.

Do you claim that it is a linear relationship? Yes or no, Poopie.

Is the slope impedance linear ? I very much doubt it. Anything 'toobie' is about as
(non) linear as a bent South African beach boy.

Excellent. That is exactly what I said in the evidence you snipped in
order to make your second lie stick: I said that the relationship was
non-linear. That too is more than you said in your first post. And then
you tried dishonestly to imply that I said otherwise.

You're lying scum, Poopie, and very easily caught out.

More gender-slurs noted. So that's how they do "science" at the
University of London, eh, Poopie?

Don't give us your bull**** waffle, give us a specific answer as you claim
(below) is everyone's scientific duty.

See above.

Where's the evidence for your contention, Poopie? From such a proven
liar as you (proven again in this post, again and again) we won't take
"I very much doubt it" as the final word. Bring us someone trustworthy
to attest to your claim.

However, it is not difficult to follow his mental process. It merely
requires some flexibility

Read gullibility and willingness to discard science.

Nope. Sophistication almost always includes wily scepticism. I leave
gullibility to diplomaed quarterwits like you and their rote learning.

And this has what exactly to do with anything ? Other than thinking you can impress ppl
with your supposed 'wordiness' ?

Oh, dear, Poopie, you have such a short attention span. I write
"flexibility", you get smartarsed (as I intend you to) and try to
reinterpret it as "gullibility" -- and I close the trap on you by
saying that no, I meant "sophistication", which of course includes
scepticism, in other words, excludes your dumb "gullibility". Never
mind if you don't understand; the joke isn't for you but for the
intelligent folk on the conference to have a chuckle at poor old Poopie
once more diving face first into the staked pit.

That's how I do science, Poopie, a nice little experiment in
psychology, a public demonstration of your impressionability and, wait
for it, gullibility. I bet money on your responding with the exact word
I predicted, and I won. Nice!

(in addition to the extremely specialized knowledge that is
a given in this discussion) to hold his view rather than yours; most
practising tube designers, if they are more than mere mechanics, will
go along with him, though not all will admit it in public. All of that
said, explaining his viewpoint is not something I would wish to
undertake on a trade show floor.

How to determince the use of JUNK SCIENCE !
================================================== ===

The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful
in identifying pseudoscience.

Who are these cited authors that you don't tell us the names of,

You removed the link. Please feel free to go back and study.

That is a lie. I removed not a single jot or tittle or word of your
text. You and Krueger may descend to dishonest tactics like these; I
have no need of them.

The question remains, Poopie. Where are these cited authors you don't
tell us the names of? After all, if they're favourites of yours, they
probably deserve to have the **** kicked out of them by any citizen
concerned about public morality. I volunteer.

Poopie? I've spoken to you before about your appeals to already
discredited authority. You're really a very slow learner.

Bwahahahahaha !

Why, will you now claim I didn't stake pits for you before, Poopie? Or
that you learned from watching me week after week for months on end
make Pinkerton pull down his pants in public? Who will believe a liar
like you, Poopie?

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Is that the headline? If so, it should be distinguished somehow from
the rest, or it looks like you're just repeating yourself, like a bad
comedy act in the clubs where you work:

Obfuscation noted.

No, not at all. This is your short memory span again. Compare "Use of
vague, exaggerated or untestable claims" from above with your claim
immediately below, and you will see that it is merely a repetition,
exactly as I say:

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack
specific measurements as a basis [18].

Nope. I made no vague claims. My claims are specific and give measured
results. You cut away the evidence so that your lie will stand up. We
are not fooled.

Unfortunately for you, your claims vary from day / month to the next one. You are an
arch-troll and obfusantist. No more, no less.

You have to prove these three new claims as well, Poopie.

And you still have offered no proof of your dumb claim about "Assertion
of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise etc, etc. ad
nauseam."

If you have any proof, Poopie, now's the time, because you're running
out of excuses, you poor inferior little man.

Failure to make use of operational definitions [19]

I made use of the operational definition of Ohm's Law several times,

Is that the only one you know ?

No, that, that's your inadequate attention span again, Poopie. I went
on in the very next phrase after the comma to list some more that I
know:

of
the operational definition of damping, and so on. You cut away the
evidence. But this is more than a lie, it is your admission that you do
not recognize Ohm, or the definition of damping, or the general
principles of electronics which are applied in my post. Where did you
say you got your diploma from again, Poopie? And how much was it,
besides the six off-brand cola caps you also had to send in?

So tell me about Norton and Thevenin 'equivalent circuits' since you're such a
smarty-pants !

I see. This is how you do "science" at the University of London. When
you are shown up as an unscientific liar and chancer, you call your
accuser a "smarty-pants" and demand that he does parlour tricks.

Where's your proof of "Failure to make use of operational definitions",
eh, Poopie. This is getting to be a very long list of statements that
you made, and have owned up to, that you cannot prove.

University of London btw.

I bet that your performance on the Usenet, and in life (1) deeply,
deeply embarrasses the University of London.

Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an
explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20]

Prove that I made a single unnecessary assumption. Again, you cut away
the evidence in your dumb attempt to prove your foolish lie. Now I'm
calling you on it. Prove it or apologize, Poopie. (Well, I'm going to
kick slack, fat arse around the houses anyway, so don't bother trying
to apologize. It's too late.)

Hah ! You're struggling now ! Occam's razor would give you one hell of a fine shave for
sure !

More vague evasion from Poopie Stevenson, who claims to be an
engineering graduate of the University of London and a "scientist". He
accuses me of a "Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony" but
when I demand proof he offers none. Instead the ridiculous little man
commits the very unscientific crime he tries to accuse me of, "i.e.
failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible
additional assumptions" -- his assumption "You're struggling now !" is
totally unnecessary (so is the exclamation and the extra ungrammatical
space before the exclamation point).

Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or
highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the
superficial trappings of science.[21]

Nope, just plain, straighforward English that anyone who graduated high
school can understand

You ?

Straighforward English ?

You jest.

Prove different, Poopie. Your opinion isn't worth **** on electronics,
as I have already demonstrated, so your opinion on literary matters
counts for even less when you're speaking to a writer whose first
editions in English alone run to four shelf-feet.

You cut away the evidence

There was no 'evidence'.

The evidence was in my original post to Robert Morein. You cut it to
try and make your lies stick. Your frivolous, ridiculous and plain
stupid answers in this post, when faced with your lies, prove that you
know you lied, and hid the evidence because you lied deliberately.

, Poopie, to make your
dumb lie stand up. Now you must prove that a single sentence of mine in
that post is "obscurantist"

Try getttin someone to read your drivel for you !

Another literary judgement from Poopie Stevenson, a liar so clumsy that
I caught him out on every lie first time.

And you still haven't proven that a single sentence of mine is
"obscurantist" -- what an ugly word. Only a clown like Poopie and his
fellow mildew-brains will ever use it.

. That's more than just "obscure" (meaning
that a retard like you won't understand it); you must prove for
"obscurantist" to stand up that there is also the intention to baffle.
Bend over, Poopie

Your homosexual leanings finally make themselves fully public !

Once more, Poopie, is this how you do "science", by trying to smear
those who expose your deliberate lies?

Are you afraid of females btw ? This is seemingly a common problem that queer boys
have. I put it down to inadequate mental development.

I love your "science", Poopie. And do you think the above passes for
wit? Perhaps among a bunch of elephants who've been into the marula
berries...

your ignorance of a noble language has again stuffed
you painfully!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Another appeal to dubious authority!

What's dubious about it ?

If you have to ask, Poopie, you will never understand. But it isn't my
business to educate you. I think -- I've proven conclusively -- that
you're ineducable, irredeemable, scum better stepped on than anything
else.

Also.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

Yet more appeals to dubious authority!

Nothing dubious there AT ALL !

Says who? The eejit Graham "Poopie" Stevenson whom I just convicted out
of his own mouth of a couple of dozen vicious, malicious, deliberate
lies, and deceitful actions as well?

Hey, Poopie, I've been wondering as I read the years and years of
mindlessly grinding, totally unenlightening soundbites from you, what
it is that you think with. Now I know. You think with ****. That's why
you are called Poopie.

My name is Eeyore you ignorant twit !

The even stoopider Ass?

Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific method
entirely.

I know more about the scientific method than you ever will

Cough Splutter - aarrgggghhhhhhhhh !

You *have* to having a right old joke THERE !

We have seen no proof that you honour the scientific method. Quite the
contrary. Just in this post I have proved that you make wild assertions
and, when pulled up on them, try to smear your accuser.

and in
particular about placebo tests, what you pretentiously call ABX tests.
But, again, you cut away the evidence in an effort to make your lie
stand up. Prove that a single sentence or other statement of mine from
that post is "anti-scientific". Again, you have to prove volition, and
that doesn't just mean that I am openly contemptuous of you and your
little certificate, and of the other diplomaed quarterwits who come on
RAT to shout down the tubies; it means you have to prove contempt for a
principle of science or for an engineer of achievement. Of course you
can't -- so you cut away the evidence of what I actually said.

YAWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That may pass as comedy in your circle of jumped-up baggagemen for
tenth-rate bands, but in the real world we note that you failed to
"Prove that a single sentence or other statement of mine from that post
is "anti-scientific".

Graham

You're not only a public liar and a fool, Poopie, you're a public
convenience of a liar and a fool.

Your obsession with 'cottaging' is noted. When did you last have a hot cock up your bum
? Not recently enough it would seem from your projected frustration.

Again, is this how you do "science"?

Why don't you tell us why you're called Poopie. At least that will be
worth a laugh.

Ask yourself. You originated it.

"Originated"? Me? I seem to remember that you were Poopie before you
embarrassed yourself so badly in that monicker that you became Eeyore.

Andre Jute
No mercy for the enemies of science

You are the ultimate enemy of science Mr Darth Jooticutie.

So you claim. But you have failed to prove a single instance where I
did not honour science and the scientific method to the full.

Instead I have proved that you haven't the faintest idea of scientific
method or discourse, that you lie, that you cheat, in short that you,
Graham Stevenson, is an outright fraud.

Graham

Unsigned out of contempt for a fool and a fraud

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, who claims to be an engineer, wrote:

A typical junk science claim from Jootikins.

Really? Then why did you snip away my text where I explain precisely
what the relationship is.

Sorry !

Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ? I might have missed it I guess.

That's another lie, this one in an attempt to distract attention from
the fact that I called you on your first lie and you don't have an
answer.

You're denying you're a homo ?

Graham

[paul packer]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:45:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ?

Your homosexual leanings finally make themselves fully public !

Are you afraid of females btw ? This is seemingly a common problem that queer boys
have.

When did you last have a hot cock up your bum

Are you trying to tell us something, Graham?

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:45:13 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ?

Your homosexual leanings finally make themselves fully public !

Are you afraid of females btw ? This is seemingly a common problem that queer boys
have.

When did you last have a hot cock up your bum

Are you trying to tell us something, Graham?

I'm a little concerned that Jootie-Poopie-Kins is a bit sexually frustrated actually.

He needs a nice pretty boy to help him 'get off' and then he'll feel a lot better.

Graham

[Jenn]

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:45:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your
tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ?

Your homosexual leanings finally make themselves fully public !

Are you afraid of females btw ? This is seemingly a common problem that
queer boys
have.

When did you last have a hot cock up your bum

Are you trying to tell us something, Graham?

plonk

[paul packer]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:13:55 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:45:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your
tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ?

Your homosexual leanings finally make themselves fully public !

Are you afraid of females btw ? This is seemingly a common problem that
queer boys
have.

When did you last have a hot cock up your bum

Are you trying to tell us something, Graham?

plonk

Who are you plonking, Jenn?

[George M. Middius]

paul packer said:

plonk

Who are you plonking, Jenn?

I suspect it's Poopie the Homophobic Dinglebear.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Eeyore]

paul packer wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:13:55 GMT, Jenn wrote:
(paul packer) wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:45:13 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your
tales of the champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ?

Your homosexual leanings finally make themselves fully public !

Are you afraid of females btw ? This is seemingly a common problem that
queer boys have.

When did you last have a hot cock up your bum

Are you trying to tell us something, Graham?

plonk

Who are you plonking, Jenn?

I was curious too.

Maybe we'll find out ?

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson blurted:

Who are you plonking, Jenn?

I was curious too.

Shut up, Poopie. I already answered this post.





--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Bill Riel]

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:13:55 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

plonk

Who are you plonking, Jenn?

I strongly doubt it was you (though by the quoting it *looked* like
you). Relative to most of RAO you're rather polite and inoffensive.

--
Bill

[Andre Jute]

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, who claims to be an engineer, wrote:

A typical junk science claim from Jootikins.

Really? Then why did you snip away my text where I explain precisely
what the relationship is.

Sorry !

Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ? I might have missed it I guess.

That's another lie, this one in an attempt to distract attention from
the fact that I called you on your first lie and you don't have an
answer.

You're denying you're a homo ?

Graham

What are you trying to hide, Poopie? This discussion is about
scientific method, not people's sexual preferences. You made some wild
claims, I proved you could not back them up, now we can only conclude
that you are a practitioner of pseudo-science, for which the URL is
below. Below I restore the proof, cut away by Poopie, that Graham
"Poopie" Stevenson has contempt for science and is totally ignorant of
the scientific method. Poopie claims to have a degree in engineering
from the University of London. On this evidence, before I believe that
I shall want to see that certificate.

This post is unsighed out of contempt for the fraud Graham "Poopie"
Stevenson.

Here is the post Poopie doesn't want you to see because it condemns him
from his own mouth:

******

Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, who claims to be an engineer, wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Soundhaspriority wrote:
I was at a show where a designer informed me that he used tube power
rectification -- 5R4 -- because it resulted in lower power supply impedance.
I countered by saying, how could this be, tube rectifiers have a 10% voltage
drop. He replied that this was true, but nevertheless, stood by his
statement.

It seems to me this could be true if a tube rectifier had negative dynamic
resistance, so that as the current increased, the voltage drop across the
tube decreased.

Any elucidatory comments?

It is not as straightforward a question as it seems.

Yes it is.

A typical junk science claim from Jootikins.

Really? Then why did you snip away my text where I explain precisely
what the relationship is.

Sorry !

Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ? I might have missed it I guess.

That's another lie, this one in an attempt to distract attention from
the fact that I called you on your first lie and you don't have an
answer.

I repeat, Poopie: If my statement is "junk science" as you claim, why
did you snip away the evidence that I explained the relationship of
current draw and voltage drop in a tube rectifier in detail and more
correctly than you did?

Is how you do "science", Poopie? First you lie, then you snip the
evidence, then try to smear anyone who calls you to account?

You're scum, Poopie.

The rectifier 'slope impedance' can can be determined from it's characterisitcs.
It *will* be higher than any silicon rectifier by loads and loads. And the supply
voltage with a tube rectifier will droop greater on load too.

Do you claim that it is a linear relationship? Yes or no, Poopie.

Is the slope impedance linear ? I very much doubt it. Anything 'toobie' is about as
(non) linear as a bent South African beach boy.

Excellent. That is exactly what I said in the evidence you snipped in
order to make your second lie stick: I said that the relationship was
non-linear. That too is more than you said in your first post. And then
you tried dishonestly to imply that I said otherwise.

You're lying scum, Poopie, and very easily caught out.

More gender-slurs noted. So that's how they do "science" at the
University of London, eh, Poopie?

Don't give us your bull**** waffle, give us a specific answer as you claim
(below) is everyone's scientific duty.

See above.

Where's the evidence for your contention, Poopie? From such a proven
liar as you (proven again in this post, again and again) we won't take
"I very much doubt it" as the final word. Bring us someone trustworthy
to attest to your claim.

However, it is not difficult to follow his mental process. It merely
requires some flexibility

Read gullibility and willingness to discard science.

Nope. Sophistication almost always includes wily scepticism. I leave
gullibility to diplomaed quarterwits like you and their rote learning.

And this has what exactly to do with anything ? Other than thinking you can impress ppl
with your supposed 'wordiness' ?

Oh, dear, Poopie, you have such a short attention span. I write
"flexibility", you get smartarsed (as I intend you to) and try to
reinterpret it as "gullibility" -- and I close the trap on you by
saying that no, I meant "sophistication", which of course includes
scepticism, in other words, excludes your dumb "gullibility". Never
mind if you don't understand; the joke isn't for you but for the
intelligent folk on the conference to have a chuckle at poor old Poopie
once more diving face first into the staked pit.

That's how I do science, Poopie, a nice little experiment in
psychology, a public demonstration of your impressionability and, wait
for it, gullibility. I bet money on your responding with the exact word
I predicted, and I won. Nice!

(in addition to the extremely specialized knowledge that is
a given in this discussion) to hold his view rather than yours; most
practising tube designers, if they are more than mere mechanics, will
go along with him, though not all will admit it in public. All of that
said, explaining his viewpoint is not something I would wish to
undertake on a trade show floor.

How to determince the use of JUNK SCIENCE !
================================================== ===

The following characteristics have been argued by the cited authors to be useful
in identifying pseudoscience.

Who are these cited authors that you don't tell us the names of,

You removed the link. Please feel free to go back and study.

That is a lie. I removed not a single jot or tittle or word of your
text. You and Krueger may descend to dishonest tactics like these; I
have no need of them.

The question remains, Poopie. Where are these cited authors you don't
tell us the names of? After all, if they're favourites of yours, they
probably deserve to have the **** kicked out of them by any citizen
concerned about public morality. I volunteer.

Poopie? I've spoken to you before about your appeals to already
discredited authority. You're really a very slow learner.

Bwahahahahaha !

Why, will you now claim I didn't stake pits for you before, Poopie? Or
that you learned from watching me week after week for months on end
make Pinkerton pull down his pants in public? Who will believe a liar
like you, Poopie?

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims

Is that the headline? If so, it should be distinguished somehow from
the rest, or it looks like you're just repeating yourself, like a bad
comedy act in the clubs where you work:

Obfuscation noted.

No, not at all. This is your short memory span again. Compare "Use of
vague, exaggerated or untestable claims" from above with your claim
immediately below, and you will see that it is merely a repetition,
exactly as I say:

Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack
specific measurements as a basis [18].

Nope. I made no vague claims. My claims are specific and give measured
results. You cut away the evidence so that your lie will stand up. We
are not fooled.

Unfortunately for you, your claims vary from day / month to the next one. You are an
arch-troll and obfusantist. No more, no less.

You have to prove these three new claims as well, Poopie.

And you still have offered no proof of your dumb claim about "Assertion
of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise etc, etc. ad
nauseam."

If you have any proof, Poopie, now's the time, because you're running
out of excuses, you poor inferior little man.

Failure to make use of operational definitions [19]

I made use of the operational definition of Ohm's Law several times,

Is that the only one you know ?

No, that, that's your inadequate attention span again, Poopie. I went
on in the very next phrase after the comma to list some more that I
know:

of
the operational definition of damping, and so on. You cut away the
evidence. But this is more than a lie, it is your admission that you do
not recognize Ohm, or the definition of damping, or the general
principles of electronics which are applied in my post. Where did you
say you got your diploma from again, Poopie? And how much was it,
besides the six off-brand cola caps you also had to send in?

So tell me about Norton and Thevenin 'equivalent circuits' since you're such a
smarty-pants !

I see. This is how you do "science" at the University of London. When
you are shown up as an unscientific liar and chancer, you call your
accuser a "smarty-pants" and demand that he does parlour tricks.

Where's your proof of "Failure to make use of operational definitions",
eh, Poopie. This is getting to be a very long list of statements that
you made, and have owned up to, that you cannot prove.

University of London btw.

I bet that your performance on the Usenet, and in life (1) deeply,
deeply embarrasses the University of London.

Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony, i.e. failing to seek an
explanation that requires the fewest possible additional assumptions when
multiple viable explanations are possible (see: Occam's Razor) [20]

Prove that I made a single unnecessary assumption. Again, you cut away
the evidence in your dumb attempt to prove your foolish lie. Now I'm
calling you on it. Prove it or apologize, Poopie. (Well, I'm going to
kick slack, fat arse around the houses anyway, so don't bother trying
to apologize. It's too late.)

Hah ! You're struggling now ! Occam's razor would give you one hell of a fine shave for
sure !

More vague evasion from Poopie Stevenson, who claims to be an
engineering graduate of the University of London and a "scientist". He
accuses me of a "Failure to adhere to the principle of parsimony" but
when I demand proof he offers none. Instead the ridiculous little man
commits the very unscientific crime he tries to accuse me of, "i.e.
failing to seek an explanation that requires the fewest possible
additional assumptions" -- his assumption "You're struggling now !" is
totally unnecessary (so is the exclamation and the extra ungrammatical
space before the exclamation point).

Use of obscurantist language. Many proponents of pseudoscience use grandiose or
highly technical jargon in an effort to provide their disciplines with the
superficial trappings of science.[21]

Nope, just plain, straighforward English that anyone who graduated high
school can understand

You ?

Straighforward English ?

You jest.

Prove different, Poopie. Your opinion isn't worth **** on electronics,
as I have already demonstrated, so your opinion on literary matters
counts for even less when you're speaking to a writer whose first
editions in English alone run to four shelf-feet.

You cut away the evidence

There was no 'evidence'.

The evidence was in my original post to Robert Morein. You cut it to
try and make your lies stick. Your frivolous, ridiculous and plain
stupid answers in this post, when faced with your lies, prove that you
know you lied, and hid the evidence because you lied deliberately.

, Poopie, to make your
dumb lie stand up. Now you must prove that a single sentence of mine in
that post is "obscurantist"

Try getttin someone to read your drivel for you !

Another literary judgement from Poopie Stevenson, a liar so clumsy that
I caught him out on every lie first time.

And you still haven't proven that a single sentence of mine is
"obscurantist" -- what an ugly word. Only a clown like Poopie and his
fellow mildew-brains will ever use it.

. That's more than just "obscure" (meaning
that a retard like you won't understand it); you must prove for
"obscurantist" to stand up that there is also the intention to baffle.
Bend over, Poopie

Your homosexual leanings finally make themselves fully public !

Once more, Poopie, is this how you do "science", by trying to smear
those who expose your deliberate lies?

Are you afraid of females btw ? This is seemingly a common problem that queer boys
have. I put it down to inadequate mental development.

I love your "science", Poopie. And do you think the above passes for
wit? Perhaps among a bunch of elephants who've been into the marula
berries...

your ignorance of a noble language has again stuffed
you painfully!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Another appeal to dubious authority!

What's dubious about it ?

If you have to ask, Poopie, you will never understand. But it isn't my
business to educate you. I think -- I've proven conclusively -- that
you're ineducable, irredeemable, scum better stepped on than anything
else.

Also.......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voodoo_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience

Yet more appeals to dubious authority!

Nothing dubious there AT ALL !

Says who? The eejit Graham "Poopie" Stevenson whom I just convicted out
of his own mouth of a couple of dozen vicious, malicious, deliberate
lies, and deceitful actions as well?

Hey, Poopie, I've been wondering as I read the years and years of
mindlessly grinding, totally unenlightening soundbites from you, what
it is that you think with. Now I know. You think with ****. That's why
you are called Poopie.

My name is Eeyore you ignorant twit !

The even stoopider Ass?

Anti-science is very popular with the devotees of thermionics in particular
where the proponents often simply dismiss the relevance of the scientific method
entirely.

I know more about the scientific method than you ever will

Cough Splutter - aarrgggghhhhhhhhh !

You *have* to having a right old joke THERE !

We have seen no proof that you honour the scientific method. Quite the
contrary. Just in this post I have proved that you make wild assertions
and, when pulled up on them, try to smear your accuser.

and in
particular about placebo tests, what you pretentiously call ABX tests.
But, again, you cut away the evidence in an effort to make your lie
stand up. Prove that a single sentence or other statement of mine from
that post is "anti-scientific". Again, you have to prove volition, and
that doesn't just mean that I am openly contemptuous of you and your
little certificate, and of the other diplomaed quarterwits who come on
RAT to shout down the tubies; it means you have to prove contempt for a
principle of science or for an engineer of achievement. Of course you
can't -- so you cut away the evidence of what I actually said.

YAWN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That may pass as comedy in your circle of jumped-up baggagemen for
tenth-rate bands, but in the real world we note that you failed to
"Prove that a single sentence or other statement of mine from that post
is "anti-scientific".

Graham

You're not only a public liar and a fool, Poopie, you're a public
convenience of a liar and a fool.

Your obsession with 'cottaging' is noted. When did you last have a hot cock up your bum
? Not recently enough it would seem from your projected frustration.

Again, is this how you do "science"?

Why don't you tell us why you're called Poopie. At least that will be
worth a laugh.

Ask yourself. You originated it.

"Originated"? Me? I seem to remember that you were Poopie before you
embarrassed yourself so badly in that monicker that you became Eeyore.

Andre Jute
No mercy for the enemies of science

You are the ultimate enemy of science Mr Darth Jooticutie.

So you claim. But you have failed to prove a single instance where I
did not honour science and the scientific method to the full.

Instead I have proved that you haven't the faintest idea of scientific
method or discourse, that you lie, that you cheat, in short that you,
Graham Stevenson, is an outright fraud.

Graham

Unsigned out of contempt for a fool and a fraud
****

RUN, POOPIE, RUN

[Eeyore]

Andre Jute wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Graham "Poopie" Stevenson, who claims to be an engineer, wrote:

A typical junk science claim from Jootikins.

Really? Then why did you snip away my text where I explain precisely
what the relationship is.

Sorry !

Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ? I might have missed it I guess.

That's another lie, this one in an attempt to distract attention from
the fact that I called you on your first lie and you don't have an
answer.

You're denying you're a homo ?

Graham

What are you trying to hide, Poopie? This discussion is about
scientific method, not people's sexual preferences.

Thank you for your admission on that point.

I don't particularly care whether you're a poof or not really but I do find the homos are
inadeqautely intellectually developed for the most part.

Graham

[ScottW]

Eeyore wrote:

I don't particularly care whether you're a poof or not really but I do find the homos are
inadeqautely intellectually developed for the most part.

George, Are you giving all homosexuals a bad rap?

I'm sure your spellchecker will give you some redemption.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Doofie the Donkey brayed:

I don't particularly care whether you're a poof or not really but I do find the homos are
inadeqautely intellectually developed for the most part.

Poopie, you're becoming a caricature of yourself. I think you need a
protracted lie-down to relieve the pressure. I suggest two years with a
possible extension of another 6 months.




--

"Christians have to ... work to make the world as loving, just, and supportive as is possible."
A. Krooger, Aug. 2006

[Jenn]

paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:13:55 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:45:13 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your
tales of the
champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ?

Your homosexual leanings finally make themselves fully public !

Are you afraid of females btw ? This is seemingly a common problem that
queer boys
have.

When did you last have a hot cock up your bum

Are you trying to tell us something, Graham?

plonk

Who are you plonking, Jenn?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jenn wrote:

paul packer wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:13:55 GMT, Jenn
wrote:
(paul packer) wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 01:45:13 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Was that interspersed with the bit where you were regaling us with your
tales of the champagne parties around the pool with nubile boys ?

Your homosexual leanings finally make themselves fully public !

Are you afraid of females btw ? This is seemingly a common problem that
queer boys have.

When did you last have a hot cock up your bum

Are you trying to tell us something, Graham?

plonk

Who are you plonking, Jenn?

Graham

Sorry Jenn !

Graham

[paul packer]

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 08:44:40 -0700, Bill Riel wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 04:13:55 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

plonk

Who are you plonking, Jenn?

I strongly doubt it was you (though by the quoting it *looked* like
you). Relative to most of RAO you're rather polite and inoffensive.


Only relative to most of RAO? Must be time for some self-reflection.