On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:19:09 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:03:37 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>>>>>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>>>>>> pissing contests.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
>>>>
>>>> I'll try. I'll really try.
>>>
>>>And he will fail.
>>
>>No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
>>and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and
>>attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.
>
>OK, *never* respond to him again. Never.

Yes sir, no problem. You'll see.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:05:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>>>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>>>>>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>>>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
>>>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
>>>>
>>>>In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
>>>>at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
>>>>learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
>>>
>>>I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
>>>as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
>>>as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
>>
>>Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.
>>
>>But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.
>>
>>I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
>>in my posts and his replies.
>
>Yes, I spotted that. I had a good laugh when I saw what you did in the
>prevous post. :-D

Well, he rags me for my occasional mis-spellings. I wish he'd learn
the difference between its and it's.

I wish even more that he would be civil, or go away. Giant stupid
flame wars drive good people away.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:06:17 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:05:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>>>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>>>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>>>>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>>>>>>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>>>>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
>>>>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
>>>>>
>>>>>In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
>>>>>at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
>>>>>learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
>>>>
>>>>I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
>>>>as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
>>>>as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
>>>
>>>Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.
>>>
>>>But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.
>>>
>>>I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
>>>in my posts and his replies.
>>
>>Yes, I spotted that. I had a good laugh when I saw what you did in the
>>prevous post. :-D
>
>Well, he rags me for my occasional mis-spellings. I wish he'd learn
>the difference between its and it's.
>
>I wish even more that he would be civil, or go away. Giant stupid
>flame wars drive good people away.
>

It's a great shame, because he *can* be very informative on those few
occasions when he chooses to be.

On 7/03/2024 5:00 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>>>
>>>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>>>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>>>
>>> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
>>
>> In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
>> at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
>> learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
>
> I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
> as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
> as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!

It's more a criticism of John Larkin. He's still streets ahead of you
when it comes to real electronics, if not - perhaps - quite as far as he
likes to think.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 7/03/2024 10:06 am, john larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:05:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This might have been the information you needed, if you knew enough to
>>>>>>>>>>> process it. The placement of your response suggests that you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your remarks were so trite they didn't bear a response. Everyone here
>>>>>>>>>> knows electrolytic caps need to be re-formed if they've been unused
>>>>>>>>>> for any significant length of time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But you didn't mention it in your original post, and clearly don't
>>>>>>>>> appreciate what it is actually doing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, that must be it. Over 60 years of hobby electronics and I never
>>>>>>>> knew that. Thanks for spoon-feeding me that vital tidbit, Bill. How
>>>>>>>> would we ever manage without you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't manage all that well. The vital tit-bit of information came
>>>>>>> from electro-chemistry, which isn't covered in detail in hobby
>>>>>>> electronics, but was part of my undergraduate chemistry course - John
>>>>>>> Larkin's did at least first year chemistry too, but probably wasn't
>>>>>>> paying attention to that bit of the course.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean there's a *syllabus* for hobby electronics?
>>>>>
>>>>> In the sense that you do have to learn stuff to be able be good enough
>>>>> at it for it to be worth pursuing as a hobby. Cursitor Doom hasn't
>>>>> learned all that much, and he resents having his short-comings pointed out.
>>>>
>>>> I'm deeply honoured that you're making the exact same criticism of me
>>>> as you make of John Larkin, Bill. That's a hell of a compliment for me
>>>> as a mere hobbyist. Thanks!
>>>
>>> Ignore him! You are rasslin with a pig and he enjoys it.
>>>
>>> But an electronic hobbyist is not "mere". It's a cool thing to do.
>>>
>>> I note that he's editing his absurd mis-spelling of "probably", even
>>> in my posts and his replies.
>>
>> Yes, I spotted that. I had a good laugh when I saw what you did in the
>> prevous post. :-D
>
> Well, he rags me for my occasional mis-spellings. I wish he'd learn
> the difference between its and it's.

I rag John Larkin for regularly and consistently misspelling semester as
semister. Everybody makes typographic errors, but he makes that mistake
reliably. I really do known the difference between its (possessive) and
it's (a contraction of "it is") but both words cone up often enough to
be subject to the occassional typo.

> I wish even more that he would be civil, or go away. Giant stupid
> flame wars drive good people away.

Being civil to John Larkin is waste of time, he's much too
over-confident to notice diplomatic correction.

Flame wars can be fun.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 7/03/2024 10:27 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 15:06:17 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 22:05:20 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 10:18:00 -0800, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 06 Mar 2024 18:00:28 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> wrote:>>>>> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:11:00 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/03/2024 6:24 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5 Mar 2024 at 13:45:55 GMT, "Bill Sloman" <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 11:21 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 8:30 pm, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 12:52:04 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/03/2024 2:50 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:29:02 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:

<snip>

>> I wish even more that he would be civil, or go away. Giant stupid
>> flame wars drive good people away.
>>
>
> It's a great shame, because he *can* be very informative on those few
> occasions when he chooses to be.

John Larkin doesn't want to be informed - he wants to be admired -and
any suggestion that he might need to be better informed is taken as an
insult.

Informing Cursitor Doom runs into a similar kind of problem - Cursitor
Doom is addicted to particularly fatuous conspiracy theories, and
resents being told quite how fatuous they are.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 7/03/2024 5:03 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2024 13:18:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On 6/03/2024 10:10 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:36:13 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
>>> <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/5/24 13:21, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 5 Mar 2024 20:56:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure you know about it as a ritual you have learned to perform. You
>>>>>> didn't actually comprehend what you were doing, [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, Bill. I'm not biting today. You'll have to get a bit more
>>>>> inventive if you want to suck me into another of your pointless
>>>>> pissing contests.
>>>>
>>>> Would you please do us all the courtesy of ignoring him?
>>>
>>> I'll try. I'll really try.
>>
>> And he will fail.
>
> No Bill, I shall not. You think you can drag me back into your endless
> and pointless to-and-fro exchanges by misrepresenting my research and
> attempting to undermine it. And I'm jolly well not falling for it.

I'm not misrepresenting your "research" - such as it was - and I'm not
trying to "undermined" it. It was a pathetic waste of time, and I just
collapse your house of cards.

"Undermining" implies that that it had some kind of structure, and it
didn't.

The really comical part of your story is your excuse for ignoring all
the work that has been done on the subject since the 1890's - as a giant
conspiracy theory to sell the world on anthropogenic global warming.

In fact you are a part of well funded conspiracy to ignore the science
that started in the late 1990's when the fossil carbon extraction
industry realised that anthropogenic global warming was eventually going
to reduce their cash flows.

By 2010 this was obvious enough to get written up in a book that sold well.

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

In 2006 it was obvious enough to earn a chapter in George Monbiot's "Heat".

https://www.monbiot.com/books/heat/

You've got the situation exactly ass backwards - which probably appeals
to your enthusiasm for fatuous absurdity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney