"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...
"mr c deckard"
"Phil Allison"







and here's why: phil, you say your can of wd-40 says, "no silicones",


* WRONG - the words " No silicone" are printed on every can sold in
Australia.


ok, i don't doubt that, phil. i'm on your side here. i want you to
win. but this may be the problem, phil. i am in the united states.
the can of wd-40 i have here, bought in the usa, DOES NOT have "no
silicones" printed on it. do you have a can of american wd-40 you can
compare to? it's ok if you don't, i can provide pictures of this one.








i have one here that
doesn't state that (it just has the "no cfc's logo and propellant:
CO2). all of this doesn't add up. i can think of 4 possibilities:


1) i can't find the "no silicones" on the label (in which case, please
specify where it is)

2) there was an older formulation that *did* contain silicones, which
scott has a msds from, and i have a can of.

3) the formulation is different in the us and australia

4) phil is making the "no silicones" thing up




5) C. Deckard is a bloody idiot.



if so, i think that would come under the same category as #1. if so,
please, could you specify where the "no silicones" is printed on your
can so i can find it on mine. is it next to the "no cfc's" logo?







i'm interested by this, since i common lore


** Whaaaaaat !! Is "common lore" just like the "common law" ???????

no. it's just that, "lore". things you hear and in the interest of
economy you take for fact until someone comes along to challenge it.

right now, you've challenged the notion that wd-40 contains silicones.
you say that your can has printed on it, "no silicones". i can't
find that on mine (i can provide pictures).

phil, could you please explain this? i would love to save the money
on contact cleaner and just use cheaper wd-40 instead of the caig
stuff, but, scott dorsey says that silicones are bad for electronics.
you said this isn't an issue because wd-40 doesn't contain silicones,
backed up by the "fact" the your can says, "no silicones" on it. but
it doesn't add up. i can't find that on my can.









says wd-40 is bad stuff to use on electronics.


** Now I see, "common lore" = mindless bull**** spewed by Yank
lunatics.


or, the formulation is different in the us, since my can doesn't say
"no silicones".

phil, i'm ready to believe you. phil, i WANT to believe you (wd-40 is
much cheaper than the caig stuff), but you've got to help me out here.
you've got to back up your words.

you're an intelligent and knowledgeable man. i like you -- you're
like the toilet paper found in st louis restrooms and clint eastwood
all at once: you're rough as hell and don't **** off no one. now,
prove all the ignorant yanks wrong. i have faith you can do it. i'm
on your side, don't let me down brother. your credibility hinges on
this question:

where do i find the "no silicones" on my can?

all my love,
chris deckard
saint louis mo

"mr c deckard" = utter cretin.
"Phil Allison"

and here's why: phil, you say your can of wd-40 says, "no silicones",

* WRONG - the words " No silicone" are printed on every can sold in
Australia.


ok, i don't doubt that, phil. i'm on your side here. i want you to
win. but this may be the problem, phil. i am in the united states.
the can of wd-40 i have here, bought in the usa, DOES NOT have "no
silicones" printed on it. do you have a can of american wd-40 you can
compare to? it's ok if you don't, i can provide pictures of this one.


** Why did you snip the URL I supplied and pretend I did not post it
?????????????????????

" See: http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html for a company
statement
on what WD40 does NOT contain. "

It says' " WD40 does not contain silicone ".



** Now, go take that can you have, lubricate it well and shove it up your
arse - you pathetic imbecile.




............ Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

"Pooh Bear"

I was able to massively improve the 'hum pickup' of a graphic eq once
simply
by running the two relevant traces virtually in parallel rather than the
rather random placement the layout guy had originally chosen.

** That would be the two PCB tracks that connect all the tops and bottoms
of each fader - thence to the inputs of the op-amp.

Indeed so IIRC without looking.


When done in the most obvious (ie dumb) way this creates an excellent
receiving loop for the field form the unit's AC transformer. Some makers go
to *great* lengths to magnetically shield the tranny rather than simply
close up the loop they made with the tracks.

'Tis true. In fact a 'shielding plate' was added before I was able to mod the
pcb.

Just come across a similar example last week actually. This time in a mic pre.
Poor pcb layout ( on the channel that also just happened to be nearest the psu )
round the inter-emitter gain set components created an approx 1 cm^2 loop.

Cut one of the tracks at a convenient point and patched it with wire-wrap wire,
reducing loop to a minimal size. 15dB reduction in induced 150 Hz ( the most
predominant frequency in the noise floor ).

In view of the quite small size of the loop I was pleasantly surprised at the
improvement. Had been expecting to have to work a bit harder ! Just shows that
theory and practice *do* work together.

Graham

xy wrote:

You seem to be going *crazy* over some minor point about electronics
that I can barely comprehend. Now I would say with certainty that you
and Mr. Rivers both know more about circuits in your little fingers
than I know in my entire body. But, I mean, you're totally railing on
the guy over semantics and some arcane point. Even if he *was* off
on some idea or mis-explained something in passing, his batting
average is really good, and he's definitely not a f--- wit! I mean,
please cut the guy some slack!

That basically seems to be Phil's M.O. He will hijack a discussion and,
rather than admit that he is wrong about something, turn the discussion
into an argument about one small technical point that is basically irrelevant
to the original topic. He is apparently well-known for this on the
sci.electronics groups. I really am curious about his background, because
he does seem to have a very good knowledge of fundamental theory, though
not much else.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

mr c deckard wrote:
phil, could you please explain this? i would love to save the money
on contact cleaner and just use cheaper wd-40 instead of the caig
stuff, but, scott dorsey says that silicones are bad for electronics.
you said this isn't an issue because wd-40 doesn't contain silicones,
backed up by the "fact" the your can says, "no silicones" on it. but
it doesn't add up. i can't find that on my can.

Actually, I didn't say that silicones were bad for electronics. I said
the problem with WD-40 was that the vehicle evaporated and the stuff left
behind crosslinked and turned into varnish. In fact, silanes might make
it more stable than just petroleum stuff.

Phil has just hooked onto the silicones thing in an attempt at shifting
the discussion from the real issue of WD-40 not being an effective
lubricant or contact cleaner, and it not being stable.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article Phil
the Pill writes:

** Why did you snip the URL I supplied and pretend I did not post it
?????????????????????

" See: http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html for a company
statement
on what WD40 does NOT contain. "

It says' " WD40 does not contain silicone ".


OK, I read that. So what? WD-40 was never intended to be a contact or
control cleaner. There is nothing in the "5 basic functions" on the
web site you referenced that has anything to do with cleaning
controls. From the web site:

CLEANS: WD-40 gets under dirt, grime and grease to clean. It also
dissolves adhesives, allowing easy removal of labels, tape, stickers,
and excess bonding material.

This suggests that it LOOSENS the crud, but the implication of
"allowing easy removal . . . " is that YOU, not the WD-40, has to
actually remove what it loosens.

DISPLACES MOISTU Because WD-40 displaces moisture, it quickly
dries out electrical systems to eliminate moisture-induced short
circuits.

I might squirt WD-40 on a connector that's been laying in the mud,
but I don't recall ever being able to trace a problem with a pot or
switch to moisture-induced short circuits. Have you?


PENETRATES: WD-40 loosens rust-to-metal bonds and frees stuck, frozen
or rusted metal parts.

I suppose it could be useful for this if you simply can't turn a
pot. You might make it worse, but if it's useless as is, you might
as well give it a shot.


LUBRICATES: WD-40's lubricating ingredients are widely dispersed and
hold firmly to all moving parts.

Is the lubricant an electrical conductor? Probably not, since they
recommend spraying it on electrical junctions to eliminate
moisture-induced short circuits.

PROTECTS: WD-40 protects metal surfaces with corrosion-resistant
ingredients to shield against moisture and other corrosive elements.

This may be a good thing, but only if the cure isn't worse than the
disease.

Just because it doesn't contain silicone doesn't make it a good
control cleaner, it only means that it is unable to cause (supposed)
harm in one particular way. I would be more concerned about the oil it
contains remaining on the contact surface attracting dirt, and having
the dirt grind away at the contact surface, accelerating wear. WD-40
makes no claims for washing itself away.

Products engineered for cleaning electronic contact surfaces aren't
all that expensive and it just makes sense to use the right thing.
I just feel better spending my money for something designed for the
purpose. That's my advice.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

This sort of interference is reduced by the fact the two wires are
*twisted* inside the cable which reverses the phase of any hum signal picked
up every inch or so along the line and hence cancels it out. Where multiple
twisted pairs are used in the same cable the twisting reduces crosstalk in
the same way as above.

Twisting puts NOTHING out of phase. Twisting assures that both wires
are introduced the same noise energy amplitude, so that is can be
properly canceled out by the differential input. Twisting improves CMR
because the noise signal is more uniform.



........... Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...

" See: http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html for a company
statement
on what WD40 does NOT contain. "

It says' " WD40 does not contain silicone ".



oh, sorry about that. i can't get to the wd-40 site since i'm behind
a firewall, so i'm taking your word on that.

however, you are insisting that i'm wrong in saying that the can
doesn't say "no silcones" on it. but i clearly have a can that
doesn't.




** Now, go take that can you have, lubricate it well and shove it up your
arse - you pathetic imbecile.



phil, i don't see how this helps to make your point. i was on your
side, my man. but now i see that you're neither here to a) learn
anything, since you're quite knowledgeable, nor b) to enlighten
anyone, since whenever someone actually considers what you're saying,
as i have been, discussion with you falls into name-calling.

this means that you're here to get a rise out of people.

which is fine.

but let's not do it over anything meaningful or audio related.

phil, the issue of amending the missouri constitution banning gay
marriage is on the ballot next month -- which way should i vote?

what do you think of michael moore?

cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis, mo

"mr c deckard"
"Phil Allison"

" See: http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html for a company
statement on what WD40 does NOT contain. "

It says' " WD40 does not contain silicone ".


oh, sorry about that. i can't get to the wd-40 site since i'm behind
a firewall, so i'm taking your word on that.


** Your stupid problem - asshole.



however, you are insisting that i'm wrong in saying that the can
doesn't say "no silcones" on it.


** I never posted any such thing.



** Now, go take that can you have, lubricate it well and shove it up
your
arse - you pathetic imbecile.



phil, i don't see how this helps to make your point.


** My point is that you are a raving idiot.

A point so obvious it hardly needs stating.




............... Phil

"Scott Dorsey"
mr c deckard wrote:
phil, could you please explain this? i would love to save the money
on contact cleaner and just use cheaper wd-40 instead of the caig
stuff, but, scott dorsey says that silicones are bad for electronics.
you said this isn't an issue because wd-40 doesn't contain silicones,
backed up by the "fact" the your can says, "no silicones" on it. but
it doesn't add up. i can't find that on my can.

Actually, I didn't say that silicones were bad for electronics.


** This Deckard idiot just makes words up and then pretends that others
posted them.



I said the problem with WD-40 was that the vehicle evaporated and the
stuff left
behind crosslinked and turned into varnish.


** Which is another lie - just like your claim that WD had silicone oil in
it.

Quote: " WD-40 is a silicone oil in a light naptha vehicle . "


Phil has just hooked onto the silicones thing.....


** No way have I locked on - this Deckard idiot was challenging the fact
that it is silicone free.



in an attempt at shifting
the discussion from the real issue of WD-40 not being an effective
lubricant or contact cleaner, and it not being stable.


** All of which are ridiculous lies from an incorrigible poster of
pseudo-technical bull****.




............... Phil

"Scott Dorsey"


That basically seems to be Phil's M.O. He will hijack a discussion and,
rather than admit that he is wrong about something,


** First - you have never shown that I was in any error.

Second - I have shown over and over that YOU are the one posting errors
and so far you have admitted to none of them.


turn the discussion
into an argument about one small technical point that is basically
irrelevant
to the original topic.


** Standard tactic by those who post numerous errors is to pretend the
point is irrelevant when it is not.


I really am curious about his background, because he does seem to have a
very good knowledge of fundamental theory, though not much else.



** Everything is based on fundanmanental theory - fail to grasp that and
you are lost entirely.

This is Mr Rivers' major problem.




............ Phil

"Mike Rivers"

Phil Allison

** Why did you snip the URL I supplied and pretend I did not post it
?????????????????????

" See: http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html for a company
statement
on what WD40 does NOT contain. "

It says' " WD40 does not contain silicone ".


OK, I read that. So what? WD-40 was never intended to be a contact or
control cleaner.


** That does not stop it from being one - and it is.


There is nothing in the "5 basic functions" on the
web site you referenced that has anything to do with cleaning
controls.


** That does not stop it from doing the job very well. The experience of
thousands of techs over several decades is all the proof needed.

Those who decry using WD40 on pots and switches etc have never even tried
it and base their objections on strange hypotheticals notions - just like
you just did.






.............. Phil

"Crumb"
This sort of interference is reduced by the fact the two wires are
*twisted* inside the cable which reverses the phase of any hum signal
picked
up every inch or so along the line and hence cancels it out. Where
multiple
twisted pairs are used in the same cable the twisting reduces crosstalk
in
the same way as above.

Twisting puts NOTHING out of phase.


** Go try it - you fool.

See how WRONG you are.




.............. Phil

In article ,
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote:
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
Rivers who?

Rivers Phoenixs ?

Apologies for jumping into this so late, but didn't he overdose on WD-40?

--
Maurice Rickard
http://mauricerickard.com/ | http://onezeromusic.com/

Phil Allison wrote:
"Crumb"
This sort of interference is reduced by the fact the two wires are
*twisted* inside the cable which reverses the phase of any hum signal
picked
up every inch or so along the line and hence cancels it out. Where
multiple
twisted pairs are used in the same cable the twisting reduces crosstalk
in
the same way as above.

Twisting puts NOTHING out of phase.


** Go try it - you fool.

See how WRONG you are.

There is a nice discussion of this in the ITT Radio Engineer's Handbook.
I won't summarize it here because it'll just make Phil go off his nut
again, but it's worth looking up.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Scott Dorsey"
Phil Allison wrote:
"Crumb"
This sort of interference is reduced by the fact the two wires are
*twisted* inside the cable which reverses the phase of any hum signal
picked
up every inch or so along the line and hence cancels it out. Where
multiple
twisted pairs are used in the same cable the twisting reduces
crosstalk
in
the same way as above.

Twisting puts NOTHING out of phase.


** Go try it - you fool.

See how WRONG you are.

There is a nice discussion of this in the ITT Radio Engineer's Handbook.
I won't summarize it here because it'll just make Phil go off his nut
again, but it's worth looking up.



** What a gutless prick you are Scott.






............ Phil

Maurice Rickard wrote:

"Geoff Wood" wrote:
David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:

Rivers who?

Rivers Phoenixs ?

Apologies for jumping into this so late, but didn't he overdose on WD-40?

He listened to too much Allison Kraus and wound up dying of slickness
from the WD-40 OD. A shame, truly; he knew what was wrong with some old
Studers, including mine.

--
ha

oh, sorry about that. i can't get to the wd-40 site since i'm behind
a firewall, so i'm taking your word on that.

got to the site, and you're right. it says "does not contain
silicone".



** Now, go take that can you have, lubricate it well and shove it up your
arse - you pathetic imbecile.




i'm assuming you mean i should lube it with wd-40, since their site
would have you believe you can use this stuff for anything, including,
i guess you mean, a personal lubricant. however, i don't think you're
supposed to put it on your skin, since, on my can, it says "SKIN
CONTACT: wash with soap and water for 15 minutes". plus, anyone
who's visted the personal lubricant section of their neighborhood sex
shop knows that silicone is preferred in this case, and is often
bought at a premium price. i'm sorry phil, but your recommendation
here falls short on two counts.


getting bored,
chris deckard
saint louis, mo

On 17 Jul 2004 09:33:13 -0700, (Crumb) wrote:

This sort of interference is reduced by the fact the two wires are
*twisted* inside the cable which reverses the phase of any hum signal picked
up every inch or so along the line and hence cancels it out. Where multiple
twisted pairs are used in the same cable the twisting reduces crosstalk in
the same way as above.

Twisting puts NOTHING out of phase. Twisting assures that both wires
are introduced the same noise energy amplitude, so that is can be
properly canceled out by the differential input. Twisting improves CMR
because the noise signal is more uniform.

perzactly. A moment's thought about the wavelength of a prospective
hum signal would make phase arguments evaporate, but even a moment's
thought is precious.

Twisting *only* averages the errors from both conductors' inability
to be in exactly the same place. The closer we can place them
physically, the less significant the effect of twisting. But it
certainly is an elegant solution to minimum insulators size.

And nothing more.

Chris Hornbeck

"Chris Hornbeck"


Twisting puts NOTHING out of phase. Twisting assures that both wires
are introduced the same noise energy amplitude, so that is can be
properly cancelled out by the differential input. Twisting improves CMR
because the noise signal is more uniform.

perzactly. A moment's thought about the wavelength of a prospective
hum signal would make phase arguments evaporate, but even a moment's
thought is precious.


** So Chris, the resident thought experiment imbecile, has still not tried
a real test.

The wavelength of the magnetic field is UTTERLY irrelevant.


Twisting *only* averages the errors from both conductors' inability
to be in exactly the same place.


** Complete bull****.

DO - A - REAL - TEST - CHRIS !!!!!!!!!!

What are YOU soooooo damn frightened of ?????????

Discovering that you are WRONG ??




................ Phil

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:38:48 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** So Chris, the resident thought experiment imbecile, has still not tried
a real test.

Thought experiments are useful as a winnow against gross
conceptual errors. For general newsgroup discussions they're
often the most appropriate place to start.

The wavelength of the magnetic field is UTTERLY irrelevant.

"It's not irrelevant. It's a hippopotamus."

Twisting *only* averages the errors from both conductors' inability
to be in exactly the same place.


** Complete bull****.

DO - A - REAL - TEST - CHRIS !!!!!!!!!!

What are YOU soooooo damn frightened of ?????????

Discovering that you are WRONG ??

I guess I'm just afraid that you wouldn't love me any more.

But I must be brave. Can you specify a test setup that will show
how the twisting of a conductor pair performs any function other
than geometry averaging?

If so, I'd take you back in a heartbeat. If not, you can have
the house and the kids.

My lawyer insisted that I also demand an explanation of the use
of four conductor twisted for tough cases.

Chris Hornbeck

"Chris Hornbeck" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:38:48 +1000, "Phil Allison"
wrote:

** So Chris, the resident thought experiment imbecile, has still not
tried
a real test.

Thought experiments are useful as a winnow against gross
conceptual errors. For general newsgroup discussions they're
often the most appropriate place to start.

The wavelength of the magnetic field is UTTERLY irrelevant.

"It's not irrelevant. It's a hippopotamus."

Twisting *only* averages the errors from both conductors' inability
to be in exactly the same place.


** Complete bull****.

DO - A - REAL - TEST - CHRIS !!!!!!!!!!

What are YOU soooooo damn frightened of ?????????

Discovering that you are WRONG ??

I guess I'm just afraid that you wouldn't love me any more.

But I must be brave. Can you specify a test setup that will show
how the twisting of a conductor pair performs any function other
than geometry averaging?

If so, I'd take you back in a heartbeat. If not, you can have
the house and the kids.

My lawyer insisted that I also demand an explanation of the use
of four conductor twisted for tough cases.

Chris Hornbeck



** Chris - please go back to to your * Fat Chick * porn sites.

People who just love your sort of person have created them ESPECIALLY for
YOU.

Promise me - keep away from kiddies play grounds.





............. Phil

** Everything is based on fundanmanental theory - fail to grasp that and
you are lost entirely.

Phil-

You need to learn the fundamental theory of human interaction.

Currently, you're lost entirely.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

"EganMedia"

** Everything is based on fundamental theory - fail to grasp that and
you are lost entirely.

Phil-

You need to learn the fundamental theory of human interaction.


** Since when is there anything so high falutin as " human interaction "
going on a corrupt NG like this one ???

Usenet is pretty much all about mob rule and runs by the law of the
jungle - but there are of course quite a few entertaining idiots like
yourself to laugh at.



Currently, you're lost entirely.


** That is only what you think.




............ Phil

Phil Allison wrote:

Usenet is pretty much all about mob rule and runs by the law of the
jungle - but there are of course quite a few entertaining idiots like
yourself to laugh at.

No, not at all. Once again I'll recommend that you might want to check out
the Emily Postnews article in news.announce.newusers. Perhaps your basic
misunderstanding of the nature of Usenet is what has got you booted out of
so many other newsgroups.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Chris Hornbeck wrote:

On 17 Jul 2004 09:33:13 -0700, (Crumb) wrote:


This sort of interference is reduced by the fact the two wires are
*twisted* inside the cable which reverses the phase of any hum signal picked
up every inch or so along the line and hence cancels it out. Where multiple
twisted pairs are used in the same cable the twisting reduces crosstalk in
the same way as above.

Twisting puts NOTHING out of phase. Twisting assures that both wires
are introduced the same noise energy amplitude, so that is can be
properly canceled out by the differential input. Twisting improves CMR
because the noise signal is more uniform.


perzactly. A moment's thought about the wavelength of a prospective
hum signal would make phase arguments evaporate, but even a moment's
thought is precious.

Twisting *only* averages the errors from both conductors' inability
to be in exactly the same place. The closer we can place them
physically, the less significant the effect of twisting. But it
certainly is an elegant solution to minimum insulators size.

And nothing more.

Chris Hornbeck

I had heard that it also creates a slight inductance, which
counterbalances the slight cpacitance caused by the relative
parallelism of the wire, which sorta-kinda phasor-diagrams
the connection back closer to a purely resistive load...

This at LAN connect speeds, not audio. I have done nothing to
verify the truth of the statement.

--
Les Cargill

"Scott Dorsey"
Phil Allison :

Usenet is pretty much all about mob rule and runs by the law of the
jungle - but there are of course quite a few entertaining idiots like
yourself to laugh at.

No, not at all.


** Your pompous, damn silly ideas do not interest me - Scott.





............ Phil

"Les Cargill"
Phil Allison


This sort of interference is reduced by the fact the two wires are
*twisted* inside the cable which reverses the phase of any hum signal
picked
up every inch or so along the line and hence cancels it out. Where
multiple
twisted pairs are used in the same cable the twisting reduces crosstalk
in
the same way as above.


I had heard that it also creates a slight inductance, which
counterbalances the slight capacitance caused by the relative
parallelism of the wire, which sorta-kinda phasor-diagrams
the connection back closer to a purely resistive load...

This at LAN connect speeds, not audio. I have done nothing to
verify the truth of the statement.



** Twisting a pair of wires reduces the linear inductance compared to a
parallel ( ie figure 8 ) pair. The characteristic impedance of a twisted
pair depends on the ratio between the inductance per unit length and the
capacitance per unit length - for most twisted pairs this impedance runs
out at about 100 - 150 ohms.

Like you said, for audio work twisted pairs are rarely used at their
characteristic impedance - unless the run is very long indeed.




.............. Phil

Usenet is pretty much all about mob rule and runs by the law of the
jungle - but there are of course quite a few entertaining idiots like
yourself to laugh at.

No, it isn't. If that were the case, this NG would be filled with people like
you rather than people like us- who are wasting our time repremanding you.

If you're laughing at me for trying to keep this place civil, you're laughing
alone, or with a bunch of like-minded dullards more inerested in ****ing on
parades than contributing to the discussion.

I appreciate your knowledge of theory, Phil. But didn't Ted Kaczynski aready
blaze the trail you're trying to map out?


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

"EganMedia"

Usenet is pretty much all about mob rule and runs by the law of the
jungle - but there are of course quite a few entertaining idiots like
yourself to laugh at.

No, it isn't.


** Oh - yes it is.


If that were the case, this NG would be filled with people like
you rather than people like us- who are wasting our time reprimanding you.



** I see a corrupt NG operating by mob rule and dominated by some very
arrogant folk. RAP is a haven for the ill-informed to misinform others -
and the dominant few sure as hell want to keep it that way.

A post containing *factual* technical info here has a much chance of
surviving as the proverbial a snow flake in hell - and the person who
posted it better have a very thick hide to stand all the abuse they will cop
for posting it.

Self appointed net policemen like you Mr Egan only serve to keep the status
quo entrenched.

Polished your jack boots nicely today ??




............... Phil

mr c deckard wrote:

got to the site, and you're right. it says "does not contain
silicone".

Coca-cola doesn't contain silicone either. I've already tried lubricating
sliders with that - I would not recommend it.

geoff

EganMedia wrote:
Usenet is pretty much all about mob rule and runs by the law of the
jungle - but there are of course quite a few entertaining idiots
like yourself to laugh at.

No, it isn't. If that were the case, this NG would be filled with
people like you rather than people like us- who are wasting our time
repremanding you.

If you're laughing at me for trying to keep this place civil, you're
laughing alone, or with a bunch of like-minded dullards more
inerested in ****ing on parades than contributing to the discussion.

I appreciate your knowledge of theory, Phil. But didn't Ted
Kaczynski aready blaze the trail you're trying to map out?


I wonder if he thinks that one can be a total obnoxious arsehole on USENET ,
and still be a reasonable sensible person in real life ?

geoff

PS OK Phalluson, I'm an arsehole too.

"Geoff Wood" -nospam


PS OK Phalluson, I'm an arsehole too.



** I found that out about you, Geoff, several years ago.

Baaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...




............... Phil

"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
mr c deckard wrote:

got to the site, and you're right. it says "does not contain
silicone".

Coca-cola doesn't contain silicone either. I've already tried lubricating
sliders with that - I would not recommend it.

Why don't we all tell Phil that we're going to use WD-40 for everything,
think he'll shut up?

In article writes:

** I see a corrupt NG operating by mob rule

No rules here.

and dominated by some very arrogant folk.

I wouldn't say "dominated" but one very arrogant folk has certainly
been commanding a lot of attention lately.

RAP is a haven for the ill-informed to misinform others

I've noticed that. Seems to be a disease with new participants.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Romeo Rondeau wrote:
"Geoff Wood" -nospam wrote in message
...
mr c deckard wrote:

got to the site, and you're right. it says "does not contain
silicone".

Coca-cola doesn't contain silicone either. I've already tried
lubricating sliders with that - I would not recommend it.

Why don't we all tell Phil that we're going to use WD-40 for
everything, think he'll shut up?

May not have silicone but it works well as a KY substitute, at a pinch. If
you don't mind the mild afterburn....


geoff

In article -nospam writes:

Coca-cola doesn't contain silicone either. I've already tried lubricating
sliders with that - I would not recommend it.

I've heard that it's good for cleaning bugs off of winshields.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

"Geoff Wood"
Romeo Rondeau wrote:


Why don't we all tell Phil that we're going to use WD-40 for
everything, think he'll shut up?

May not have silicone but it works well as a KY substitute, at a pinch.
If
you don't mind the mild afterburn....



** Now ** that * * is quite an admission.

You and Mike Rivers do indeed have much in common.




........... Phil

"Mike Rivers"

Geoff Woods


Coca-cola doesn't contain silicone either. I've already tried
lubricating
sliders with that - I would not recommend it.

I've heard that it's good for cleaning bugs off of winshields.



** Should do just fine to clean Mike Rivers' putrid ****e off a newsgroup
them.






........... Phil

"Mike Rivers"

" Phil Allison "

** I see a corrupt NG operating by mob rule

No rules here.


** So mob rules apply by default.


and dominated by some very arrogant folk.

I wouldn't say "dominated"....


** You would not say anything that was true.



RAP is a haven for the ill-informed to misinform others

I've noticed that.


** Sure - since YOU are the main culprit with over 30,000 posts .





............. Phil