Anthony William Sloman's profile photo
Anthony William Sloman
Jan 27, 2024, 9:22:00 PM (3 hours ago)
to
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+11, jim whitby wrote:
> Pardon me if this is a dupe.
> On 1/26/24 20:26, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.
> >
> > Not exactly. He posted that he needed help, and I suggested that I'd
> be available as a remote - electronic contact only - sub-contractor.
> >
> > His reaction as to copy the e-mail to Jim Thompson who promptly
> posted posted a comment that he'd stopped John Larkin from making a huge
> mistake.
> >
> > That not just "not hiring", but a gross violation of privacy. I
> couldn't care less about not being hired - I would have liked to get the
> work, though the more John Larkin posts about his approach to design the
> less confident I am about my capacity to offer him anything he'd want to
> use.
> >
> > I was mightily peeved about Jim Thompson getting a private e-mail
> from me to John Larkin, and that has - quite properly - coloured my
> reactions to John Larkin ever since.
> >
> > He's simply not to be trusted.
>
> <snip>
>
> So, what I'm hearing you say is, you're upset because he tried to "check your references".

He wasn't trying to "check any references". Jim Thompson didn't know any more about me than John Larkin did - what they both knew was what I'd posted here, and nothing else.

He did it because I wasn't fond of Jim Thompson and Jim Thompson wasn't fond of me - Jim once claimed to have reported me to the FBI for being dangerously anti-American, which was a bizarre misreading of my attitude,

> Did you not think that would happen?

Frankly, no. I knew that John Larkin was a jerk, but hadn't appreciated quite how much of a jerk he was.

> Want to blame someone? Blame JT for being public about it.

Jim Thompson was a total jerk - he seemed to think that his hill-billy antecedents made it obligatory for him to behave badly.

> You on the other hand are attempting to do just what you claim JL did wrong?

Actually , no. All this stuff is in the sci.electronic.design archives, which are searchable. I imagine that Google could find it all pretty quickly. I'm not going to bother looking, but it ought to be there. I've just filled in the bits that John Larkin's version left out.

> Attempting to degrade someone publicly.

Jim Thompson did that to him. If Jim hadn't been a total jerk, he wouldn't have done it

> Just my 2cents worth. Feel free to blame me for something, if it makes you feel better.

I don't feel bad about it at all. John behaved badly, and Jim Thompson made it obvious that John had behaved badly by behaving even worse.

When people you don't much like make it obvious why sensible people don't like them there a certain measure of schadenfreude to be had.

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 4:22:25 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 00:12:27 -0500, jim whitby <j...@afraid.org> wrote:
> >On 1/26/24 20:26, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >
> ><snip>

> Ignore him.

John Larkin resents the fact that I don't admire him as much as he wants to be admired, and is silly enough to make it obvious that he expects a more sycophantic attitude and that he is niggled by the absence of the flattery he feels that is his due.

Somebody slightly more mature wouldn't advertise his need for flattery quite so obviously.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 1:17:42 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 8:18:03 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 4:12:44 PM UTC+11, jim whitby wrote:
> > > On 1/26/24 20:26, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >> He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.
> > > >
> > > > Not exactly. He posted that he needed help, and I suggested that I'd
> > > be available as a remote - electronic contact only - sub-contractor.
> > > >
> > > > His reaction as to copy the e-mail to Jim Thompson who promptly
> > > posted posted a comment that he'd stopped John Larkin from making a huge
> > > mistake.
> > >
> > > That not just "not hiring", but a gross violation of privacy.
> > > > I couldn't care less about not being hired - I would have liked to get the
> > > work, though the more John Larkin posts about his approach to design the
> > > less confident I am about my capacity to offer him anything he'd want to
> > > use.
> > > >
> > > > I was mightily peeved about Jim Thompson getting a private e-mail
> > > from me to John Larkin, and that has - quite properly - coloured my
> > > reactions to John Larkin ever since.
> > > >
> > > > He's simply not to be trusted.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > So, what I'm hearing you say is, you're upset because he tried to "check your references".
> >
> > He wasn't trying to "check any references". Jim Thompson didn't know any more about me than John Larkin did - what they both knew was what I'd posted here, and nothing else.
> >
> > He did it because I wasn't fond of Jim Thompson and Jim Thompson wasn't fond of me - Jim once claimed to have reported me to the FBI for being dangerously anti-American, which was a bizarre misreading of my attitude,
> >
> > > Did you not think that would happen?
> >
> > Frankly, no. I knew that John Larkin was a jerk, but hadn't appreciated quite how much of a jerk he was.
> >
> > > Want to blame someone? Blame JT for being public about it.
> >
> > Jim Thompson was a total jerk - he seemed to think that his hill-billy antecedents made it obligatory for him to behave badly.
> >
> Thompson was another case of a certifiable imbecile, obsessing enough over single-purpose tasking, to become somewhat capable. His is not an isolated example of the defect.

Jim certainly wasn't any kind of imbecile. He was designing integrated circuits from early on. He wasn't a top rank integrated circuit designer, and was well below the Bob Widlar and the Barry Gilbert level, but perfectly adequate for routine stuff,
> He was a marginalized reject in life. No reasonable person gave him or his ignorant opinions the time of day.

Except people who wanted a special purpose integrated circuit, and had an application that could a 100,000 of them or more. There is a niche for application specific integrated circuit design, and it kept Jim busy and well-paid all his life.

He didn't have to get well educated to be competent in that narrow field so his opinions outside his narrow speciality reflected his hill-billy background - well-off hill-billies but still yokels. He was bright enough to qualify for Mensa, and wise enough to recognise that people who actually join it aren't very bright, even if they can do well on IQ tests, so he didn't actually join.

<snip>

--
Bil Sloman, Sydney

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 06:17:37 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs
<bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 8:18:03?AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> Anthony William Sloman's profile photo
>> Anthony William Sloman
>> Jan 27, 2024, 9:22:00?PM (3 hours ago)
>> to
>> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 4:12:44?PM UTC+11, jim whitby wrote:
>> > Pardon me if this is a dupe.
>> > On 1/26/24 20:26, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> > >> He wanted me to hire him, and I didn't.
>> > >
>> > > Not exactly. He posted that he needed help, and I suggested that I'd
>> > be available as a remote - electronic contact only - sub-contractor.
>> > >
>> > > His reaction as to copy the e-mail to Jim Thompson who promptly
>> > posted posted a comment that he'd stopped John Larkin from making a huge
>> > mistake.
>> > >
>> > > That not just "not hiring", but a gross violation of privacy. I
>> > couldn't care less about not being hired - I would have liked to get the
>> > work, though the more John Larkin posts about his approach to design the
>> > less confident I am about my capacity to offer him anything he'd want to
>> > use.
>> > >
>> > > I was mightily peeved about Jim Thompson getting a private e-mail
>> > from me to John Larkin, and that has - quite properly - coloured my
>> > reactions to John Larkin ever since.
>> > >
>> > > He's simply not to be trusted.
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > So, what I'm hearing you say is, you're upset because he tried to "check your references".
>> He wasn't trying to "check any references". Jim Thompson didn't know any more about me than John Larkin did - what they both knew was what I'd posted here, and nothing else.
>>
>> He did it because I wasn't fond of Jim Thompson and Jim Thompson wasn't fond of me - Jim once claimed to have reported me to the FBI for being dangerously anti-American, which was a bizarre misreading of my attitude,
>> > Did you not think that would happen?
>> Frankly, no. I knew that John Larkin was a jerk, but hadn't appreciated quite how much of a jerk he was.
>> > Want to blame someone? Blame JT for being public about it.
>> Jim Thompson was a total jerk - he seemed to think that his hill-billy antecedents made it obligatory for him to behave badly.
>
>Thompson was another case of a certifiable imbecile, obsessing enough over single-purpose tasking, to become somewhat capable. His is not an isolated example of the defect.

Being very good at something is not a defect. The world benefits
enormously from savants who often lack the usual broad spectrum of
mediocre skills. They often suffer for us.

>
>He was a marginalized reject in life. No reasonable person gave him or his ignorant opinions the time of day.

He designed a lot of stuff. And seemed to have fun. He liked wine too
much and ruined his pancreas.

I was talking to one of my engineers about these issues, just
yesterday. He's brilliant and insanely fast, but a tad autistic, like
me. I have trouble recognizing faces, and he is *totally* face-blind.
We both forget names. He recognizes people by their hair and size and
clothes.

This is an electronic design forum, not some popularity contest or
therapy session. Go to Facebook for that sort of thing.

On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 2:38:11 AM UTC+11, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 10:22:08 AM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 06:17:37 -0800 (PST), Fred Bloggs <bloggs.fred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 8:18:03?AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 4:12:44?PM UTC+11, jim whitby wrote:
> > >> > On 1/26/24 20:26, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
<snip>

> > >Thompson was another case of a certifiable imbecile, obsessing enough over single-purpose tasking, to become somewhat capable. His is not an isolated example of the defect.
> >
> > Being very good at something is not a defect. The world benefits
> > enormously from savants who often lack the usual broad spectrum of
> > mediocre skills. They often suffer for us.
>
> I wouldn't elevate him to the level of a savant.

Neither would I.

> > >He was a marginalized reject in life. No reasonable person gave him or his ignorant opinions the time of day.

Not remotely correct.

> > He designed a lot of stuff. And seemed to have fun. He liked wine too much and ruined his pancreas.
> Alcohol is a Class 1 carcinogen.
>
> "Compounds or physical factors assessed by IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) are classified in four groups based on the existing scientific evidence for carcinogenicity. Group 1: "Carcinogenic to humans" There is enough evidence to conclude that it can cause cancer in humans."
>
> That's a scientific finding/ conclusion, not an opinion or a conspiracy theory.

It ignores the fact that alcohol - in very moderate doses - is a social lubricant. People who drink moderately live slightly longer than those who don't drink at all.

> Motorola was all about reverse engineering. They had whole divisions dedicated to it. It kept them in business. But they're gone now, except for that spin-off manufacturing non-unique reverse engineered parts.

This rather ignores their contributions to emitter-coupled logic, which they pioneered. ECLinPS was their product, and I'm not away of any second sources.

Philips and Fairchild both second-sourced 100k ECL, but seemed to baulk at ECLinPS.

> > I was talking to one of my engineers about these issues, just
> > yesterday. He's brilliant and insanely fast, but a tad autistic, like
> > me. I have trouble recognizing faces, and he is *totally* face-blind.
> > We both forget names. He recognizes people by their hair and size and
> > clothes.
> >
> Autism is probably responsible for your tendency to deny what you don't like to hear.

That's probably more egomania. Autism does seem to involve defective social communications, but the desire to be seen as more clever than you actually are doesn't seem to be part of the diagnostic picture, even if it does make the victim hard to get on with.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

In article <8dd3c1c4-fdbb-461f-9483-608e5d73332an@googlegroups.com>,
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>I've got back to the 9th November 2023 marking all the spam advertising
>regulated goods and service. Google will probably get around to deleting
>all of it.
>
>The flood seems to have started on the 24th October 2023, so I've still
>got a way to go, but the end is in sight.
>
>Darius the particularly Dumb is a different kind of problem.
>
>John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we
>haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty
>years.

I have reasonable success by blocking posts with an unreasonable
large subject line (>60 chars). comp.lang.forth was unreadable
before that. (Not that it is a solution, but hey!)

>
>--
>Bill Sloman, sydhey

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 Monday, January 29, 2024 at 1:04:32 AM UTC+11, none albert wrote:
> In article <8dd3c1c4-fdbb-461f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> >I've got back to the 9th November 2023 marking all the spam advertising
> >regulated goods and service. Google will probably get around to deleting
> >all of it.
> >
> >The flood seems to have started on the 24th October 2023, so I've still
> >got a way to go, but the end is in sight.
> >
> >Darius the particularly Dumb is a different kind of problem.
> >
> >John Larkin has been just as reliably wrong for a lot longer, and we
> >haven't been able to either educate him or get him to shut up in twenty
> >years.
>
> I have reasonable success by blocking posts with an unreasonable
> large subject line (>60 chars). comp.lang.forth was unreadable
> before that. (Not that it is a solution, but hey!)

Not a problem that I've run into. Spam is a distraction, but it doesn't make group inaccessible for me.
Once you have worked out that it is spam - which doesn't take me long - I can ignore it.

I don't like it and use Google groups spam reporting to make some of it go away, but not as much of it as I'd like.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On January 27, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> People who drink moderately live slightly longer than those who don't drink at all.
Dog owners have lower blood pressure than the canineless.
Therefore, if you adopt a dog, it will lower your blood pressure.

--
Rich

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:39:40 -0800 (PST), RichD
<r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On January 27, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> People who drink moderately live slightly longer than those who don't drink at all.
>
>Dog owners have lower blood pressure than the canineless.
>Therefore, if you adopt a dog, it will lower your blood pressure.
>

It probably will.