Now that time has passed, who knows... maybe I have captured evidence of "Weather Modification" Testing...

https://youtu.be/Pj4E6sW5QoA?si=68OGIPGIZkLNQ78_

Nobody ever asked the question:

Did Stalin modify the weather to freeze Hitler's army to death ?!

Stalin and his people sure modified the shit out of the ground/earth, who knows what they did to the air.................

Let this be a warning to Nato.

Perhaps Russia has top secret weather modification chemicals !

You've been warned !

Bye for now,
Skybuck.

On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> Now that time has passed, who knows... maybe I have captured evidence of "Weather Modification" Testing...
>
> https://youtu.be/Pj4E6sW5QoA?si=68OGIPGIZkLNQ78_
>
> Nobody ever asked the question:
>
> Did Stalin modify the weather to freeze Hitler's army to death ?!
>
> Stalin and his people sure modified the shit out of the ground/earth, who knows what they did to the air.................
>
> Let this be a warning to Nato.
>
> Perhaps Russia has top secret weather modification chemicals !
>
> You've been warned !
>
> Bye for now,
> Skybuck.

I remember from history lessons in primary school how the
Russians dealt with invasions on their territory by scorched
earth tactics. I did not, at the time, realize what this
must have meant for the populations of those territories.

Anyway, those tactics no longer work. Drones and ICBMs don't
care about scorched earth, nor for the weather, for that matter.

Jeroen Belleman

On 1/22/24 19:23, a a wrote:
> The arsehole Skybuck Flying <skybuckflying@gmail.com> persisting in being an Off-topic troll...
>

Off-topic troll alert! This arsehole "a a" persists in posting spam to
the group.

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

>On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>> Now that time has passed, who knows... maybe I have captured evidence of "Weather Modification" Testing...
>>
>> https://youtu.be/Pj4E6sW5QoA?si=68OGIPGIZkLNQ78_
>>
>> Nobody ever asked the question:
>>
>> Did Stalin modify the weather to freeze Hitler's army to death ?!
>>
>> Stalin and his people sure modified the shit out of the ground/earth, who knows what they did to the air.................
>>
>> Let this be a warning to Nato.
>>
>> Perhaps Russia has top secret weather modification chemicals !
>>
>> You've been warned !
>>
>> Bye for now,
>> Skybuck.
>
>I remember from history lessons in primary school how the
>Russians dealt with invasions on their territory by scorched
>earth tactics. I did not, at the time, realize what this
>must have meant for the populations of those territories.

That's just the way Russia's always been. Extreme brutality seems to
be a national character trait. If you're going to pick a fight with
Russia, you can't afford to lose or there'll be *hell* to pay.

>
>Anyway, those tactics no longer work. Drones and ICBMs don't
>care about scorched earth, nor for the weather, for that matter.
>
>Jeroen Belleman

On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:

<snip>

> >I remember from history lessons in primary school how the
> >Russians dealt with invasions on their territory by scorched
> >earth tactics. I did not, at the time, realize what this
> >must have meant for the populations of those territories.
>
> That's just the way Russia's always been. Extreme brutality seems to
> be a national character trait. If you're going to pick a fight with
> Russia, you can't afford to lose or there'll be *hell* to pay.

There is no such thing as "a national character trait". Picking a fight with any large country is a bad idea.

> >Anyway, those tactics no longer work. Drones and ICBMs don't
> >care about scorched earth, nor for the weather, for that matter.

Drones and ICBM are are fairly high-tech and expensive weapons. If you can't grow the food to feed the people who are making them, you can't keep on making them. Active aggression and active defense are both pretty expensive activities, so wrecking your opponents economy is a great way of winning a war.

Putin's tolerance of corruption means that the Russian economy isn't all that productive, so his capacity to wage war is limited (not that he seems to have noticed).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >I remember from history lessons in primary school how the
>> >Russians dealt with invasions on their territory by scorched
>> >earth tactics. I did not, at the time, realize what this
>> >must have meant for the populations of those territories.
>>
>> That's just the way Russia's always been. Extreme brutality seems to
>> be a national character trait. If you're going to pick a fight with
>> Russia, you can't afford to lose or there'll be *hell* to pay.
>
>There is no such thing as "a national character trait".

Stuff and nonsense, Bill. Everyone with any sense knows there's some
substance to national stereotypes. I'll grant you there are always
exceptions, but as a rule, you'll find the Irish are drunks, Armenians
are dishonest, Australians are ignorant and rude, Germans are
hard-working but ill-tempered, the French are haughty and conceited,
the English are kind-hearted and generous, Africans are savages,
Canadians are desperately dull, the Swiss are punctual and meticulous;
the Chinese are beastly towards animals. It's only the blinkered
hoards of woke Lefties that deny these differences and constantly
insist that everyone's the same. All the same! What a preposterous
notion!
So I'll stick by my analysis of the Russians - and you would agree if
you'd ever read anything by the likes of Chekhov, Solzhenitsyn ,
Turgenev or Dostoyevski - which clearly you haven't. Do yourself a
favour and pick up a book some time and you just might learn something
of the world.

On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> >I remember from history lessons in primary school how the
> >> >Russians dealt with invasions on their territory by scorched
> >> >earth tactics. I did not, at the time, realize what this
> >> >must have meant for the populations of those territories.
> >>
> >> That's just the way Russia's always been. Extreme brutality seems to
> >> be a national character trait. If you're going to pick a fight with
> >> Russia, you can't afford to lose or there'll be *hell* to pay.
> >
> >There is no such thing as "a national character trait".
>
> Stuff and nonsense, Bill. Everyone with any sense knows there's some
> substance to national stereotypes. I'll grant you there are always
> exceptions, but as a rule, you'll find the Irish are drunks, Armenians
> are dishonest, Australians are ignorant and rude, Germans are
> hard-working but ill-tempered, the French are haughty and conceited,
> the English are kind-hearted and generous, Africans are savages,
> Canadians are desperately dull, the Swiss are punctual and meticulous;
> the Chinese are beastly towards animals. It's only the blinkered
> hoards of woke Lefties that deny these differences and constantly
> insist that everyone's the same. All the same! What a preposterous
> notion!

That really is stuff and nonsense. Nobody with any sense insists that "people are all the same".
The actual formulation is that everybody is different, and that every nation has a similar proportion of drunks, crooks, rude people, ignorant people and so forth.
The variation within nationalities is much larger than the variation - if any - between nationalities.
All of those platitudes are self-serving nonsense. Nobody who has ever lived in England would catagorise the English as kind-hearted or generous - quite a few of them are, but no more that in any other place I've lived. What I noticed was that a lot of them were remarkably class-conscious - more than I'd run into Australia (which definitely does have social classes, but encourages people to act as of it didn't.)

> So I'll stick by my analysis of the Russians - and you would agree if
> you'd ever read anything by the likes of Chekhov, Solzhenitsyn ,
> Turgenev or Dostoyevski - which clearly you haven't.

I've limited my Russian reading to Tolstoy and the Stugatski brothers (who wrote some interesting science fiction). Chekov is more famous for his plays. Sokzhenitskin got picked up by the Americans and I found Dostoyevski hopelessly tedious

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkady_and_Boris_Strugatsky

I've only read them in translation - I did science Russian at university and eventually passed, but the aim was to get me to the point where I could translate Russian scientific papers, and the Americans took to doing it on a large scale and I never had to bother.

> Do yourself a favour and pick up a book some time and you just might learn something of the world.

I've been a voracious reader all my life. I once caught John Woodgate trying to pass off a Thomas Love Peacock satire as ancient Welsh. I'm not silly enough to think that novels tell you all that much about the world, They tell you quite a bit about the author's environment, but not the whole story by any means.

You seem to imagine that you know something of the world, but you post enough fatuous nonsense to make it blindingly obvious that you don't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

In article <27e28553-ff12-4b85-a02c-f15c06626c8dn@googlegroups.com>,
Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:41:28 PM UTC-5, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>> Now that time has passed, who knows... maybe I have captured evidence
>of "Weather Modification" Testing...
>>
>> https://youtu.be/Pj4E6sW5QoA?si=68OGIPGIZkLNQ78_
>>
>> Nobody ever asked the question:
>>
>> Did Stalin modify the weather to freeze Hitler's army to death ?!
>
>Hitler's Army (Paulus) froze to death because their supply lines were
>interdicted. Other than that, they could have handled the cold quite
>well.

There is more to it. The German army was not trained for this
circumstances. Compare this with the Kozaks, arriving from Siberia.
Sniping at -40C is something special.
The main problem Paulus had, was the discussion at the main staff with
Hitler, where they dare not speak of realistic problems with supplies.
The rest is history.

>>
>> Stalin and his people sure modified the shit out of the ground/earth,
>who knows what they did to the air.................
>>
>> Let this be a warning to Nato.
>>
>> Perhaps Russia has top secret weather modification chemicals !
>>
>> You've been warned !

Hitler had sufficently self-inflicted problems that we don't need
to go for this explanation.

>
>>
>> Bye for now,
>> Skybuck.

Groetjes Albert
--
Don't praise the day before the evening. One swallow doesn't make spring.
You must not say "hey" before you have crossed the bridge. Don't sell the
hide of the bear until you shot it. Better one bird in the hand than ten in
the air. First gain is a cat purring. - the Wise from Antrim -

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:39:07 +0100, albert@cherry.(none) (albert)
wrote:

>In article <27e28553-ff12-4b85-a02c-f15c06626c8dn@googlegroups.com>,
>Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:41:28 PM UTC-5, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>> Now that time has passed, who knows... maybe I have captured evidence
>>of "Weather Modification" Testing...
>>>
>>> https://youtu.be/Pj4E6sW5QoA?si=68OGIPGIZkLNQ78_
>>>
>>> Nobody ever asked the question:
>>>
>>> Did Stalin modify the weather to freeze Hitler's army to death ?!
>>
>>Hitler's Army (Paulus) froze to death because their supply lines were
>>interdicted. Other than that, they could have handled the cold quite
>>well.
>
>There is more to it. The German army was not trained for this
>circumstances. Compare this with the Kozaks, arriving from Siberia.
>Sniping at -40C is something special.
>The main problem Paulus had, was the discussion at the main staff with
>Hitler, where they dare not speak of realistic problems with supplies.
>The rest is history.
>

They still used a lot of horses, too.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 06:30:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 8:57:35?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:39:07 +0100, albert@cherry.(none) (albert)
>> wrote:
>> >In article <27e28553-ff12-4b85...@googlegroups.com>,
>> >Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:41:28?PM UTC-5, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>> >>> Now that time has passed, who knows... maybe I have captured evidence
>> >>of "Weather Modification" Testing...
>> >>>
>> >>> https://youtu.be/Pj4E6sW5QoA?si=68OGIPGIZkLNQ78_
>> >>>
>> >>> Nobody ever asked the question:
>> >>>
>> >>> Did Stalin modify the weather to freeze Hitler's army to death ?!
>> >>
>> >>Hitler's Army (Paulus) froze to death because their supply lines were
>> >>interdicted. Other than that, they could have handled the cold quite
>> >>well.
>> >
>> >There is more to it. The German army was not trained for this
>> >circumstances. Compare this with the Kozaks, arriving from Siberia.
>> >Sniping at -40C is something special.
>> >The main problem Paulus had, was the discussion at the main staff with
>> >Hitler, where they dare not speak of realistic problems with supplies.
>> >The rest is history.
>> >
>> They still used a lot of horses, too.
>
>Damned idiot had 600,000 infantry troops walking into Russia on foot. Germany didn't have enough transport for them all, despite stealing hundreds of thousands of vehicles from their earlier conquests in France and the Sudetenland, and the low countries. The disadvantage there was his army couldn't maneuver fast enough to completely encircle the Russians, which was an idiot strategy anyway.

One small resource-limited country, attacking all its neighbors in all
directions, isn't very bright, although that had been standard
practice in europe for some millenia. Sort of still is.

Stealing French motor vehicles wasn't too swift either.

On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>> >
>> ><snip>
>> >
>> >> >I remember from history lessons in primary school how the
>> >> >Russians dealt with invasions on their territory by scorched
>> >> >earth tactics. I did not, at the time, realize what this
>> >> >must have meant for the populations of those territories.
>> >>
>> >> That's just the way Russia's always been. Extreme brutality seems to
>> >> be a national character trait. If you're going to pick a fight with
>> >> Russia, you can't afford to lose or there'll be *hell* to pay.
>> >
>> >There is no such thing as "a national character trait".
>>
>> Stuff and nonsense, Bill. Everyone with any sense knows there's some
>> substance to national stereotypes. I'll grant you there are always
>> exceptions, but as a rule, you'll find the Irish are drunks, Armenians
>> are dishonest, Australians are ignorant and rude, Germans are
>> hard-working but ill-tempered, the French are haughty and conceited,
>> the English are kind-hearted and generous, Africans are savages,
>> Canadians are desperately dull, the Swiss are punctual and meticulous;
>> the Chinese are beastly towards animals. It's only the blinkered
>> hoards of woke Lefties that deny these differences and constantly
>> insist that everyone's the same. All the same! What a preposterous
>> notion!
>
>That really is stuff and nonsense. Nobody with any sense insists that "people are all the same".
>The actual formulation is that everybody is different, and that every nation has a similar proportion of drunks, crooks, rude people, ignorant people and so forth.
>The variation within nationalities is much larger than the variation - if any - between nationalities.
>All of those platitudes are self-serving nonsense. Nobody who has ever lived in England would catagorise the English as kind-hearted or generous - quite a few of them are, but no more that in any other place I've lived. What I noticed was that a lot of them were remarkably class-conscious - more than I'd run into Australia (which definitely does have social classes, but encourages people to act as of it didn't.)
>
>> So I'll stick by my analysis of the Russians - and you would agree if
>> you'd ever read anything by the likes of Chekhov, Solzhenitsyn ,
>> Turgenev or Dostoyevski - which clearly you haven't.
>
>I've limited my Russian reading to Tolstoy and the Stugatski brothers (who wrote some interesting science fiction). Chekov is more famous for his plays. Sokzhenitskin got picked up by the Americans and I found Dostoyevski hopelessly tedious
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkady_and_Boris_Strugatsky
>
>I've only read them in translation - I did science Russian at university and eventually passed, but the aim was to get me to the point where I could translate Russian scientific papers, and the Americans took to doing it on a large scale and I never had to bother.
>
>> Do yourself a favour and pick up a book some time and you just might learn something of the world.
>
>I've been a voracious reader all my life. I once caught John Woodgate trying to pass off a Thomas Love Peacock satire as ancient Welsh. I'm not silly enough to think that novels tell you all that much about the world, They tell you quite a bit about the author's environment, but not the whole story by any means.
>
>You seem to imagine that you know something of the world, but you post enough fatuous nonsense to make it blindingly obvious that you don't.

You do love to argue, even when you're making yourself look daft by
citing some pulp Sci-Fi authors. Most of us grew out of SF by the time
we discovered what our dicks were for. Seems you didn't!

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 07:25:46 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 06:30:18 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
><bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 8:57:35?AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:39:07 +0100, albert@cherry.(none) (albert)
>>> wrote:
>>> >In article <27e28553-ff12-4b85...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> >Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 12:41:28?PM UTC-5, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>> >>> Now that time has passed, who knows... maybe I have captured evidence
>>> >>of "Weather Modification" Testing...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> https://youtu.be/Pj4E6sW5QoA?si=68OGIPGIZkLNQ78_
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Nobody ever asked the question:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Did Stalin modify the weather to freeze Hitler's army to death ?!
>>> >>
>>> >>Hitler's Army (Paulus) froze to death because their supply lines were
>>> >>interdicted. Other than that, they could have handled the cold quite
>>> >>well.
>>> >
>>> >There is more to it. The German army was not trained for this
>>> >circumstances. Compare this with the Kozaks, arriving from Siberia.
>>> >Sniping at -40C is something special.
>>> >The main problem Paulus had, was the discussion at the main staff with
>>> >Hitler, where they dare not speak of realistic problems with supplies.
>>> >The rest is history.
>>> >
>>> They still used a lot of horses, too.
>>
>>Damned idiot had 600,000 infantry troops walking into Russia on foot. Germany didn't have enough transport for them all, despite stealing hundreds of thousands of vehicles from their earlier conquests in France and the Sudetenland, and the low countries. The disadvantage there was his army couldn't maneuver fast enough to completely encircle the Russians, which was an idiot strategy anyway.
>
>One small resource-limited country, attacking all its neighbors in all
>directions, isn't very bright, although that had been standard
>practice in europe for some millenia. Sort of still is.
>
>Stealing French motor vehicles wasn't too swift either.

As a military commander, Hitler was hopeless. He had one of the finest
armies in the world ever and just squandered it with a succession of
poor judgements.

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 7:41:25 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:

<snip>

> >> So I'll stick by my analysis of the Russians - and you would agree if
> >> you'd ever read anything by the likes of Chekhov, Solzhenitsyn ,
> >> Turgenev or Dostoyevski - which clearly you haven't.
> >
> >I've limited my Russian reading to Tolstoy and the Stugatski brothers (who wrote some interesting science fiction). Chekov is more famous for his plays. Sokzhenitskin got picked up by the Americans and I found Dostoyevski hopelessly tedious
> >
> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkady_and_Boris_Strugatsky
> >
> >I've only read them in translation - I did science Russian at university and eventually passed, but the aim was to get me to the point where I could translate Russian scientific papers, and the Americans took to doing it on a large scale and I never had to bother.
> >
> >> Do yourself a favour and pick up a book some time and you just might learn something of the world.
> >
> >I've been a voracious reader all my life. I once caught John Woodgate trying to pass off a Thomas Love Peacock satire as ancient Welsh. I'm not silly enough to think that novels tell you all that much about the world, They tell you quite a bit about the author's environment, but not the whole story by any means.
> >
> >You seem to imagine that you know something of the world, but you post enough fatuous nonsense to make it blindingly obvious that you don't.
>
> You do love to argue, even when you're making yourself look daft by
> citing some pulp Sci-Fi authors.

The Strugatsky brothers didn't write "pulp science fiction" - they were more in the Larry Niven, Arthur C Clarke and Neal Stephenson league.

> Most of us grew out of SF by the time we discovered what our dicks were for. Seems you didn't!

A lot of science fiction is written for adolescents - I never though much of the stuff that was written for that market.

One of the other Russian science fiction authors I've read is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Zamyatin

who exemplifies the satirical aspect of the genre, which you don't seem to be aware of.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:33:04 -0800 (PST), Anthony William "Last Word"
Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 7:41:25?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>> >> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> >> So I'll stick by my analysis of the Russians - and you would agree if
>> >> you'd ever read anything by the likes of Chekhov, Solzhenitsyn ,
>> >> Turgenev or Dostoyevski - which clearly you haven't.
>> >
>> >I've limited my Russian reading to Tolstoy and the Stugatski brothers (who wrote some interesting science fiction). Chekov is more famous for his plays. Sokzhenitskin got picked up by the Americans and I found Dostoyevski hopelessly tedious
>> >
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkady_and_Boris_Strugatsky
>> >
>> >I've only read them in translation - I did science Russian at university and eventually passed, but the aim was to get me to the point where I could translate Russian scientific papers, and the Americans took to doing it on a large scale and I never had to bother.
>> >
>> >> Do yourself a favour and pick up a book some time and you just might learn something of the world.
>> >
>> >I've been a voracious reader all my life. I once caught John Woodgate trying to pass off a Thomas Love Peacock satire as ancient Welsh. I'm not silly enough to think that novels tell you all that much about the world, They tell you quite a bit about the author's environment, but not the whole story by any means.
>> >
>> >You seem to imagine that you know something of the world, but you post enough fatuous nonsense to make it blindingly obvious that you don't.
>>
>> You do love to argue, even when you're making yourself look daft by
>> citing some pulp Sci-Fi authors.
>
>The Strugatsky brothers didn't write "pulp science fiction" - they were more in the Larry Niven, Arthur C Clarke and Neal Stephenson league.
>
>> Most of us grew out of SF by the time we discovered what our dicks were for. Seems you didn't!
>
>A lot of science fiction is written for adolescents - I never though much of the stuff that was written for that market.
>
>One of the other Russian science fiction authors I've read is
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevgeny_Zamyatin
>
>who exemplifies the satirical aspect of the genre, which you don't seem to be aware of.

One of the enduring aspects of the human psyche is the endless drive
to set other people beneath you; to try to gain some sort of status
advantage by any number of ingenious means. The noted anthropologist
Desmond Morris wrote about it at some length in his 1977 book
Manwatching. Here's an excerpt from page 124 as he goes on to describe
the methods by which those of the lower social strata differentiate
themselves for this purpose:
".....There is also the Joker, another low-status type who manages to
increase his dominance slightly by entertaining his companions. By
amusing them, he puts himself in demand. Unable to gain their serious
respect, he gains it by humoring them, in both senses of the word.
Then there is the Talker: the man who never stops talking and thereby
manages to hold the centre of attention for much more than his share
of any social encounter. And finally, there is the Arguer, who prowls
the social [media] scene wanting to pick a verbal fight. By disrupting
the smooth flow of social intercourse, he too draws attention to
himself and slightly increases his standing in the process." That last
one's you to a tee, isn't it, Bill? Except that despite your best
efforts, you only earn the disdain of others through your
indefatigable efforts.

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:05:07 PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:33:04 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 7:41:25?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
<snip>

> One of the enduring aspects of the human psyche is the endless drive
> to set other people beneath you; to try to gain some sort of status
> advantage by any number of ingenious means.

I can't say I've noticed this. Insecure people do tend to rabbit on about the status they think they have got, but that's mainly self-reassurance.

>The noted anthropologist Desmond Morris wrote about it at some length in his 1977 book Manwatching.

He wasn't any kind of "noted anthroplogist". He was just one more popular science author, though his publishers did try to talk up his academic status a bit.
Noe of the anthropologists I know ever talked about him.

> Here's an excerpt from page 124 as he goes on to describe
> the methods by which those of the lower social strata differentiate
> themselves for this purpose:

<snip>

> " And finally, there is the Arguer, who prowls the social [media] scene wanting to pick a verbal fight. By disrupting
> the smooth flow of social intercourse, he too draws attention to himself and slightly increases his standing in the process."

> That last one's you to a tee, isn't it, Bill?

Not exactly. I go after people who post nonsense. I was doing long before there was a sci.electronics.design

If you look me up on scholar.google you will find I've published about half-a-dozen critical comments inf places like the review of Scientific Instruments - where critical comments are peer-reviewed just like any other item. It's not a status-seeking thing - you don't get any status from correcting errors.

> Except that despite your best efforts, you only earn the disdain of others through your indefatigable efforts.

People who post a lot of nonsense - like you and John Larkin - don't like me much. You may want to dignify your resentment by calling it "disdain" but it's purely irritation at being rumbled. At your level in the pecking order you lack the status to be disdainful.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:05:07?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:33:04 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 7:41:25?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> One of the enduring aspects of the human psyche is the endless drive
>> to set other people beneath you; to try to gain some sort of status
>> advantage by any number of ingenious means.
>
>I can't say I've noticed this. Insecure people do tend to rabbit on about the status they think they have got, but that's mainly self-reassurance.
>
>>The noted anthropologist Desmond Morris wrote about it at some length in his 1977 book Manwatching.
>
>He wasn't any kind of "noted anthroplogist". He was just one more popular science author, though his publishers did try to talk up his academic status a bit.
>Noe of the anthropologists I know ever talked about him.
>
> > Here's an excerpt from page 124 as he goes on to describe
>> the methods by which those of the lower social strata differentiate
>> themselves for this purpose:
>
><snip>
>
>> " And finally, there is the Arguer, who prowls the social [media] scene wanting to pick a verbal fight. By disrupting
>> the smooth flow of social intercourse, he too draws attention to himself and slightly increases his standing in the process."
>
>> That last one's you to a tee, isn't it, Bill?
>
>Not exactly. I go after people who post nonsense. I was doing long before there was a sci.electronics.design
>
>If you look me up on scholar.google you will find I've published about half-a-dozen critical comments inf places like the review of Scientific Instruments - where critical comments are peer-reviewed just like any other item. It's not a status-seeking thing - you don't get any status from correcting errors.
>
>> Except that despite your best efforts, you only earn the disdain of others through your indefatigable efforts.
>
>People who post a lot of nonsense - like you and John Larkin - don't like me much. You may want to dignify your resentment by calling it "disdain" but it's purely irritation at being rumbled. At your level in the pecking order you lack the status to be disdainful.

Well, as far as this group is concerned, when it comes to electronics,
I admit I'm towards the bottom of the pecking order. I'm just a
hobbyist and have never claimed to be anything more. I'm in the thrall
of people like John Larkin and Phil Hobbs whose level of expertise in
the subject I could never hope to equal. However, when it comes to
just about any *other* subject, I'm very much higher up - and can
certainly kick your arse with consummate ease. Sorry for the bad
language and no offence intended. You'll never admit it, but outside
of electronics, I'm the Big Dawg here - and you know it.

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 5:13:44 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:05:07?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:33:04 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 7:41:25?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> One of the enduring aspects of the human psyche is the endless drive
> >> to set other people beneath you; to try to gain some sort of status
> >> advantage by any number of ingenious means.
> >
> >I can't say I've noticed this. Insecure people do tend to rabbit on about the status they think they have got, but that's mainly self-reassurance.
> >
> >>The noted anthropologist Desmond Morris wrote about it at some length in his 1977 book Manwatching.
> >
> >He wasn't any kind of "noted anthroplogist". He was just one more popular science author, though his publishers did try to talk up his academic status a bit.
> >Noe of the anthropologists I know ever talked about him.
> >
> > > Here's an excerpt from page 124 as he goes on to describe
> >> the methods by which those of the lower social strata differentiate
> >> themselves for this purpose:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> " And finally, there is the Arguer, who prowls the social [media] scene wanting to pick a verbal fight. By disrupting
> >> the smooth flow of social intercourse, he too draws attention to himself and slightly increases his standing in the process."
> >
> >> That last one's you to a tee, isn't it, Bill?
> >
> >Not exactly. I go after people who post nonsense. I was doing long before there was a sci.electronics.design
> >
> >If you look me up on scholar.google you will find I've published about half-a-dozen critical comments inf places like the review of Scientific Instruments - where critical comments are peer-reviewed just like any other item. It's not a status-seeking thing - you don't get any status from correcting errors.
> >
> >> Except that despite your best efforts, you only earn the disdain of others through your indefatigable efforts.
> >
> >People who post a lot of nonsense - like you and John Larkin - don't like me much. You may want to dignify your resentment by calling it "disdain" but it's purely irritation at being rumbled. At your level in the pecking order you lack the status to be disdainful.
>
> Well, as far as this group is concerned, when it comes to electronics,
> I admit I'm towards the bottom of the pecking order. I'm just a
> hobbyist and have never claimed to be anything more. I'm in the thrall
> of people like John Larkin and Phil Hobbs whose level of expertise in
> the subject I could never hope to equal.

But you don't know enough to realise that Phil Hobbs is way more expert than John Larkin.

> However, when it comes to just about any *other* subject, I'm very much higher up - and can
> certainly kick your arse with consummate ease.

You do like to think that. It's not remotely true. You still haven't taken on board that I have a Ph.D. in chemistry and that when I tell you that your 1890 papers on atmospheric CO2 levels don't mean what you like to think they do, I'm right and you are wrong . I got to do just that procedure in the third and last year of my undergraduate chemistry course in 1962, so I do have a better idea that you do of problems with those results. What I don't understand is how it got into the practical chemistry part of the course - atmospheric CO2 levels weren't on anybody's mind at the time. Toxic gases like hydrogen sulphide and carbon monoxide were worth monitoring and this was a safer experiment, but physical methods were in use by then (if expensive - Charles Keeling started his CO2 measurements in 1958 with an infra-red absorbtion machine that you could buy off the shelf if you had the money).

> Sorry for the bad language and no offence intended. You'll never admit it, but outside of electronics, I'm the Big Dawg here - and you know it.

We all know that you like to think that, and we all know that you are a pretentious half-wit.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 18:13:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
><bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>>On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:05:07?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:33:04 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 7:41:25?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> >> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>> >> >> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> >> >> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> One of the enduring aspects of the human psyche is the endless drive
>>> to set other people beneath you; to try to gain some sort of status
>>> advantage by any number of ingenious means.
>>
>>I can't say I've noticed this. Insecure people do tend to rabbit on about the status they think they have got, but that's mainly self-reassurance.
>>
>>>The noted anthropologist Desmond Morris wrote about it at some length in his 1977 book Manwatching.
>>
>>He wasn't any kind of "noted anthroplogist". He was just one more popular science author, though his publishers did try to talk up his academic status a bit.
>>Noe of the anthropologists I know ever talked about him.
>>
>> > Here's an excerpt from page 124 as he goes on to describe
>>> the methods by which those of the lower social strata differentiate
>>> themselves for this purpose:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> " And finally, there is the Arguer, who prowls the social [media] scene wanting to pick a verbal fight. By disrupting
>>> the smooth flow of social intercourse, he too draws attention to himself and slightly increases his standing in the process."
>>
>>> That last one's you to a tee, isn't it, Bill?
>>
>>Not exactly. I go after people who post nonsense. I was doing long before there was a sci.electronics.design
>>
>>If you look me up on scholar.google you will find I've published about half-a-dozen critical comments inf places like the review of Scientific Instruments - where critical comments are peer-reviewed just like any other item. It's not a status-seeking thing - you don't get any status from correcting errors.
>>
>>> Except that despite your best efforts, you only earn the disdain of others through your indefatigable efforts.
>>
>>People who post a lot of nonsense - like you and John Larkin - don't like me much. You may want to dignify your resentment by calling it "disdain" but it's purely irritation at being rumbled. At your level in the pecking order you lack the status to be disdainful.
>
>Well, as far as this group is concerned, when it comes to electronics,
>I admit I'm towards the bottom of the pecking order. I'm just a
>hobbyist and have never claimed to be anything more. I'm in the thrall
>of people like John Larkin and Phil Hobbs whose level of expertise in
>the subject I could never hope to equal. However, when it comes to
>just about any *other* subject, I'm very much higher up - and can
>certainly kick your arse with consummate ease. Sorry for the bad
>language and no offence intended. You'll never admit it, but outside
>of electronics, I'm the Big Dawg here - and you know it.

We don't need a heirarchy. Everybody can discuss stuff and help one
another.

Some people only want to be nasty. Ignore them.

Do you cook? Ski? Saw? Read books? There must be some other way I can
kick your arse. But if you don't mind, I know what a dawg is, but what
what is an arse?

On Monday, January 29, 2024 at 2:43:22 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 18:13:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:05:07?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:33:04 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> >On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 7:41:25?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> >> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> >> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:

<snip>

> We don't need a heirarchy. Everybody can discuss stuff and help one another.

They can and a lot of people do. You don't, and probably could. Cursitor Doom doesn't because he doesn't know much and what he thinks he knows is mostly wrong.
> Some people only want to be nasty. Ignore them.

Some people don't share John Larkin's exaggerated opinion of his expertise. He sees their efforts to correct his errors as nasty and unkind, and keep on posting the same nonsense.

> Do you cook? Ski? Saw? Read books? There must be some other way I can kick your arse.

This is sci.electronics.design - skills outside electronics may become visible here, but they aren't what we are here to improve.

> But if you don't mind, I know what a dawg is, but what what is an arse?

You sit on one, and so does everybody else. "Kick your arse" can be translated as "outperform you" but it gets more force by using a word that isn't used in polite company.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:41:52 -0800, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 18:13:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
>><bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:05:07?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:33:04 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> >On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 7:41:25?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> >> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> >> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> One of the enduring aspects of the human psyche is the endless drive
>>>> to set other people beneath you; to try to gain some sort of status
>>>> advantage by any number of ingenious means.
>>>
>>>I can't say I've noticed this. Insecure people do tend to rabbit on about the status they think they have got, but that's mainly self-reassurance.
>>>
>>>>The noted anthropologist Desmond Morris wrote about it at some length in his 1977 book Manwatching.
>>>
>>>He wasn't any kind of "noted anthroplogist". He was just one more popular science author, though his publishers did try to talk up his academic status a bit.
>>>Noe of the anthropologists I know ever talked about him.
>>>
>>> > Here's an excerpt from page 124 as he goes on to describe
>>>> the methods by which those of the lower social strata differentiate
>>>> themselves for this purpose:
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>> " And finally, there is the Arguer, who prowls the social [media] scene wanting to pick a verbal fight. By disrupting
>>>> the smooth flow of social intercourse, he too draws attention to himself and slightly increases his standing in the process."
>>>
>>>> That last one's you to a tee, isn't it, Bill?
>>>
>>>Not exactly. I go after people who post nonsense. I was doing long before there was a sci.electronics.design
>>>
>>>If you look me up on scholar.google you will find I've published about half-a-dozen critical comments inf places like the review of Scientific Instruments - where critical comments are peer-reviewed just like any other item. It's not a status-seeking thing - you don't get any status from correcting errors.
>>>
>>>> Except that despite your best efforts, you only earn the disdain of others through your indefatigable efforts.
>>>
>>>People who post a lot of nonsense - like you and John Larkin - don't like me much. You may want to dignify your resentment by calling it "disdain" but it's purely irritation at being rumbled. At your level in the pecking order you lack the status to be disdainful.
>>
>>Well, as far as this group is concerned, when it comes to electronics,
>>I admit I'm towards the bottom of the pecking order. I'm just a
>>hobbyist and have never claimed to be anything more. I'm in the thrall
>>of people like John Larkin and Phil Hobbs whose level of expertise in
>>the subject I could never hope to equal. However, when it comes to
>>just about any *other* subject, I'm very much higher up - and can
>>certainly kick your arse with consummate ease. Sorry for the bad
>>language and no offence intended. You'll never admit it, but outside
>>of electronics, I'm the Big Dawg here - and you know it.
>
>We don't need a heirarchy. Everybody can discuss stuff and help one
>another.
>
>Some people only want to be nasty. Ignore them.
>
>Do you cook? Ski? Saw? Read books? There must be some other way I can
>kick your arse. But if you don't mind, I know what a dawg is, but what
>what is an arse?

Bill Sloman! :D

On Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 3:41:53 AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 19:41:52 -0800, John Larkin <j...@997PotHill.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 18:13:35 +0000, Cursitor Doom <c...@notformail.com> wrote:
> >>On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 05:32:36 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:05:07?PM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 19:33:04 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>> >On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 7:41:25?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>>> >> On Fri, 26 Jan 2024 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>> >> >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 6:07:37?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>>> >> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 17:03:52 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>> >> >> >On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 8:00:35?AM UTC+11, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> >>>> >> >> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:08:20 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
> >>>> >> >> >> >On 1/22/24 18:41, Skybuck Flying wrote:

<snip>

> >We don't need a heirarchy. Everybody can discuss stuff and help one
> >another.
> >
> >Some people only want to be nasty. Ignore them.
> >
> >Do you cook? Ski? Saw? Read books? There must be some other way I can
> >kick your arse. But if you don't mind, I know what a dawg is, but what
> >what is an arse?
>
> Bill Sloman! :D

Only in Cursitor Doom's deluded reality, where he is a "big dawg" despite getting his arse kicked more or less non-stop.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney